LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 


GIFT  OF 


^Accession         861/^9 


S£& 


* 


Mr.  Savage's   Books. 


Religious  Reconstruction.     12010 $1.00 

These  Degenerate  Days.    Small  i6mo.     Flexible 50 

My  Creed.     i2mo i.oo 

Poems.      i6mo.     Full  gilt.     With  portrait 
Light  on  the  Cloud.     i6mo.     Full  gilt     . 

Social  Problems.     i2mo 

The  Religious  Life.     i2mo 

Belief  in  God 


•  50 
•25 
.00 
.00 

.00 

Beliefs  about  Man.  12010 i.oo 

Beliefs  about  the  Bible i.oo 

The  Modern  Sphinx.  i2tno i.oo 

The  Morals  of  Evolution.  i2mo i.oo 

Talks  about  Jesus.  12010 i.oo 

Man,  Woman  and  Child.  i2mo i.oo 

Christianity  the  Science  of  Manhood.  12010 i.oo 

The  Religion  of  Evolution.  12010 1.50 

Life  Questions.  i6mo  1.00 

Bluffton:  A  Story  of  To-day.  12010 1.50 

The  Minister's  Hand-book.  For  Christenings,  Weddings, 

and  Funerals.  Cloth 75 

Sacred  Songs  for  Public  Worship.  A  Hymn  and  Tune 

Book.     Edited  by  M.  J.  Savage  and  Howard  M.  Dow. 

Cloth i.oo 

Leather 1.50 


Mr.  Savage's  weekly  sermons  are  regularly  printed  in  pamphlet 
form  in  "  Unity  Pulpit.  Subscription  price,  for  the  season,  $1.50; 
single  copies,  5  cents. 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS,  Publisher, 

141  Franklin  St.,  Boston,  Mass. 


RELIGIOUS  RECONSTRUCTION 


BY 


M.   J.    SAVAGE 

V 


1  The  thoughts  of  men  are  widened  with  the  process  of  the  suns." 

Tennyson 


BOSTON 

GEO.  H.  ELLIS,  141  FRANKLIN  STREET 
1888 


IGHJ 

BY  GJJORGE  H.  ELLIS 


To  MY  own  self  this  book  I  dedicate, — 
That  self  that  shineth  o'er  me  as  a  star, 
Still  lifting,  guiding,  luring  from  afar, — 

That  self  which,  though  all-glorious,  is  my  mate ; 

That,  though  as  high  above  my  poor  estate 
As  o'er  the  earth  the  brooding  heavens  are, 
Still  whispers  that  this  distance  is  no  bar 

To  him  who  climbs  th'  ideal  to  create ! 


To  this,  God  in  me,  of  me,  my  life-love, 
That  has  inspired  all  my  nobler  past, 
To  this  all  that  I  am  I  owe  alone  I 
My  blessed  counterpart,  it  shines  above ; 
And  since,  as  with  God's  hand,  it  holds  me  fast, 
It  bids  me  know  it  shall  be  all  my  own ! 


86129 


PREFACE 

THIS  book  is  an  earnest  attempt  to  answer  earnest  questions 
that  have  come  to  me  from  all  over  the  land.  These  questions 
are  "  in  the  air,"  and  are  a  product  of  the  most  serious  life  of  the 
age.  If  they  are  flippantly  asked  by  a  few,  they  are  devoutly  and 
courageously  asked  by  many  more.  Too  many  to  be  answered 
privately,  they  are  also  too  much  a  matter  of  public  concern  to  be 
hidJen  in  a  corner. 

Believing,  as  I  do,  that  religion  is  a  permanent  and  the 
supreme  interest  of  man,  I  also  believe  that  "the  thoughts  of 
men  are  widened  with  the  process  of  the  suns."  People  wish  to 
be  religious,  but  it  is  becoming  more  and  more  true  that  they  are 
not  willing  to  pay  so  high  a  price  as  their  brains  for  what  passes 
current  under  the  name  of  religion.  Along  with  the  growth  of 
knowledge,  then,  concerning  the  universe,  God  and  man,  there 
must  go  a  parallel  readjustment  of  the  thought-side  of  the  relig- 
ious life.  And  this  means  only  that  God  is  the  God  of  truth  as 
well  as  of  devoutness.  He,  then,  shows  the  deepest  faith  in  God 
who  fearlessly  faces  the  truth,  and  lets  it  build  the  temple  in 
which  he  will  worship. 


CONTENTS 

I.    PRESENT  CONDITIONS  OF  RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT     .  9 

II.    RELIGION  AND  THEOLOGY 24 

III.  THE  SCRIPTURES '  .  40 

IV.  COSMOLOGY  AND  THEOLOGY 57 

V.     IDEAS  OF  GOD,  OLD  AND  NEW 72 

VI.    THE  FALL  OF  MAN 87 

VII.    REDEMPTION  OR  EDUCATION? .  103 

VIII.    JESUS o    .  120 

IX.    THE  OLD  CHURCH  AND  THE  NEW    ......  136 

X.    THE  END  OF  THE  WORLD 151 

XI.    THE  DESTINY  OF  THE  SOUL 164 

XII.    IF  YOU  ARE  RIGHT,  How  DOES  IT  HAPPEN  THAT 

EVERY  ONE  DOES  NOT  AGREE  WITH  YOU?      .  181 

XIII.  HERESY  AND  CONFORMITY 197 

XIV.  THE  DUTY  OF  LIBERALS 215 

XV.    THE  Loss  AND  GAIN  OF  RELIGIOUS  RECONSTRUC- 
TION     231 


Present  Conditions  of  Religious  Thought. 


HOWEVER  far  I  may  find  myself  to-day  from  agreeing  with 
the  statements  of  faith  that  were  made  by  the  fathers,  I  am 
glad  and  proud  to  be  able  to  trace  my  spiritual  lineage  to 
the  old  Congregational  churches  of  New  England.  They 
were  grand,  consistent  men  who  founded  those  churches. 
They  were  men  possessed  of  positive  convictions.  They 
dared  to  think  clear  thoughts.  They  were  men  who  be- 
lieved from  the  crown  of  their  heads  to  the  soles  of  their 
feet.  They  were  men  who  tried  to  live  out  their  convictions, 
and  to  shape  human  life  in  accord  with  what  they  believed  to 
be  the  will  of  God  and  the  best  interests  of  men.  And  if, 
sometimes,  they  were  willing  to  persecute  others  in  the  inter- 
est of  their  own  belief,  they  were  also  willing  to  endure 
hardships  themselves  for  those  same  great  faiths.  They  did 
both  tinder  the  influence  of  that  profound  conviction  which 
made  them  believe  that  they  had  no  choice  in  the  matter. 
This  was  God's  truth  as  they  understood  it ;  and,  like  Mar- 
tin Luther,  and  in  that  spirit  which  every  man  has  who  feels 
that  he  is  the  mouth-piece  of  the  Eternal,  they  said  :  "  Here 
I  stand.  God  help  me,  I  can  no  other.'* 

Who  were  these  men?  They  were  the  picked  men  of 
England.  Many  of  them  were  men  of  wealth,  occupying 
high  social  positions, —  men  who  had  proved  that  they  were 
able  to  cope  with  and  conquer  the  forces  and  conditions  of 
this  world  and  of  the  civilization  of  which  they  were  a  part. 


io  Religious  Reconstruction 

But  they  were  men  who  would  not  stand  any  intermediaries 
between  themselves  and  God.  They  refused  to  bow  their 
necks  to  any  human  authority.  They  refused  to  submit 
their  judgments,  their  consciences,  the  direction  of  their 
minds  and  lives,  to  any  man-made  institutions,  any  man-made 
rituals,  any  man-made  dogmas,  as  they  understood  those 
terms.  They  were  the  rationalists,  in  the  best  sense  of  that 
word,  of  their  time.  They  studied  carefully  the  basis  for 
their  belief  in  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures.  They  used 
their  reason  freely,  fearlessly,  earnestly,  in  coming  to  the 
conclusion  that  those  words  were  the  inspired  oracles  of 
God.  And,  when  they  had  reached  that  conviction,  they 
refused  to  have  anything  between  them  and  the  word  of 
God.  They  would  come  to  it  with  their  own  minds  unbi- 
assed, if  they  could, —  with  the  earnestness  of  seekers  after 
truth.  They  would  take  the  truth  first-hand,  not  diluted,  not 
perverted,  not  twisted  from  its  meaning  by  the  interpreta- 
tions of  scholastics  or  under  the  bias  of  ecclesiastical  insti- 
tutions. They  were,  as  I  said,  rationalists ;  and,  when  they 
had  accepted  the  Bible  as  the  word  of  God,  they  claimed 
the  right  to  come  to  it,  every  man  for  himself,  and  in  the 
light  of  the  best  scholarship  of  the  time  interpret  its  mean- 
ing. They  claimed  the  right  of  free  inquiry,  freedom  of 
research,  the  right  of  private  judgment  as  to  what  God 
desired  them  to  do.  I  claim,  therefore,  in  no  spirit  of 
boasting,  in  no  spirit  of  pretence,  that  I  am  doing  to-day 
precisely  the  kind  of  work  that  they  did  in  their  time.  They 
went  out  into  the  wilderness  to  found  a  new  commonwealth 
of  God,  that  they  might  be  free  to  follow  their  convictions  as 
to  what  was  right.  To-day,  we,  in  their  spirit,  under  the  im- 
pulse of  the  same  purpose,  for  the  sake  of  reaching  the  same 
end  which  they  had  in  view,  go  out  into  the  wilderness  of. 
intellectual  thought  and  life,  that  we  may  found  a  new  com- 


Present  Conditions  of  Religious   Thought         1 1 

monwealth  of  God ;  that  we,  like  them,  may  listen  for  the 
spirit,  unhindered  by  any  authoritative  interpretations  of  men. 

As  then  the  fathers  put  aside  the  Church  that  claimed  to 
interpret  the  Bible  for  them,  so  we  put  aside  the  creeds  that 
claim  to  interpret  the  same  Bible.  We  put  aside  the  very 
theory  of  the  Bible  which  they  held,  for  what  we  conceive  to 
be  adequate  reason.  We  will  not  have  any  man-made  insti- 
tution or  any  man-made  interpretation  between  our  souls  and 
the  great  Father  of  all. 

Now,  what  did  these  men  believe  ?  They  believed  that 
this  world  was  created  at  a  definite  point  in  time,  that  God 
lived  outside  the  universe  which  he  had  made  and  of  which 
he  was  the  rightful  dictator  and  governor.  They  believed 
that  he  created  man  in  his  own  image,  and  placed  him  here 
upon  the  earth ;  that  man,  in  the  exercise  of  his  own  free 
choice,  rebelled  against  the  rightful  authority  of  heaven,  and 
that,  as  the  result  of  that,  the  whole  human  race  lies  under 
the  wrath  and  curse  of  Almighty  God;'  that  every  soul  is 
lost ;  that  every  man,  woman,  and  child  on  earth,  that  has 
ever  been  born,  or  is  alive,  or  that  is  to  be  born,  has  been, 
is,  or  must  be  guilty  of  high  treason  against  heaven,  deserv- 
ing no  mercy  at  the  hands  of  Infinite  Justice,  lying  helpless 
at  the  feet  of  the  Infinite  Mercy,  to  be  disposed  of  by  the 
Infinite  Wisdom  as  he  chooses.  The  scheme  of  doctrine 
which  they  deduced  from  these  Scriptures,  which  they  had 
accepted  as  the  direct  and  infallible  revelation  of  God,  they 
believed  to  be  in  every  part  a  transcript  of  the  divine  mind. 
It  was  God's  plan  for  saving  so  many  of  the  souls  of  his 
children  as  he  in  his  infinite  wisdom  decided  were  to  be 
saved. 

The  whole  scheme  of  doctrine  that  the  fathers  held  sprang 
out  of  the  supposed  ruin  of  man ;  and,  from  beginning  to 
end,  it  was  intended  merely  as  a  means  of  recovery.  It  was 


12  Religious  Reconstruction 

God's  way  of  saving  the  lost.  They  believed  this  rationally 
and  intelligently.  They  believed  it  with  their  whole  souls ; 
and  they  tried  to  live  in  accordance  with  their  belief.  They 
tried  to  found  here  in  New  England  a  divine  commonwealth, 
a  theocracy,  a  government  of  God,  in  which  there  might 
be  realized  what  to  them  were  divine  ideals  of  human  life. 
I  say  they  believed  these  things  intelligently.  There  was 
no  reason  then,  in  the  state  of  knowledge  that  prevailed  at 
that  time,  why  they  should  not  hold  these  beliefs  intelli- 
gently as  rational,  earnest,  inquiring  men.  I  suppose  it  is 
true  —  and  we  need  to  note  this  truth,  because  of  the  dif- 
ferent use  of  language  at  the  present  time  —  that  the  men 
who  rebelled  against  those  beliefs  were  not  generally  clear- 
headed, intelligent,  earnest  thinkers,  who  were  ahead  of  their 
age.  Sometimes  they  were,  it  is  true;  but  the  infidel  in 
early  New  England  life  was  generally  the  kind  of  rebel  that 
the  pulpits  pictured  him.  He  rebelled  not  against  what  he 
did  not  believe  to  be  divine  truth;  but  he  rebelled  in  the 
interests  of  his  own  will  against  what,  perhaps,  he  would 
have  confessed  in  his  own  heart  was  a  government  of  God. 
The  pulpit  in  those  times  got  to  using  the  word  "  infidel "  in 
that  sense,  and  has  kept  it  up  ever  since ;  though  the  times 
are  so  changed  that  the  man  who  is  an  infidel  to-day  is  an 
entirely  different  person,  intellectually,  morally,  and  spirit- 
ually, from  the  one  who  first  wore,  and  perhaps  deserved, 
the  epithet. 

Such,  then,  was  the  belief  of  the  Church  from  which  our 
liberalism  has  sprung;  but  several  things  have  happened 
since  then  that  have  changed  the  intellectual  atmosphere 
of  the  world,  that  have  made  us  live  in  another  spiritual 
and  theological  climate,  that  have  made  us,  in  all  literalness, 
the  inhabitants  of  another  kind  of  universe.  Let  me  indi- 
cate a  few  of  these  great  changes  that  have  passed  over  the 
civilized  world. 


Present  Conditions  of  Religious  Thought         13 

In  the  first  place,  there  has  been  a  revolution  in  physics, 
that  passes  under  the  general  name  of  science, —  the  revolu- 
tion in  our  thoughts  about  the  universe,  its  age,  its  origin, 
and  the  method  of  its  development.  There  has  gone  along 
with  that,  of  necessity,  a  change  in  our  conception  of  the 
nature  of  God,  of  the  nature  of  his  government  of  the  uni- 
verse, of  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to  his  creatures. 
It  does  not  fall  within  the  limits  of  my  purpose,  this  morn- 
ing, to  outline  very  definitely  what  this  great  change  is  that 
has  come  about  as  the  result  of  the  growth  of  modern  sci- 
ence ;  neither  is  it  necessary  for  the  purpose  we  have  in  hand. 
I  wish  this  morning  merely  to  note  the  fact,  and  the  conse- 
quences that  have  resulted  from  it.  It  will  be  a  part  of  my 
plan  to  go  more  into  detail  later  in  this  series. 

There  has  come,  then, —  and  this  is  a  fact  that  we  need  to 
bear  in  mind, —  a  revolution  —  nothing  less  than  that  —  in 
our  thought  about  the  universe,  that  has  carried  with  it,  of 
necessity,  a  revolution  in  our  thought  about  God, — of  his 
relation  to  the  universe,  which  is  his  garment,  the  expression 
of  his  life. 

In  the  second  place  there  has  been  a  revolution  in  a  nar- 
rower department  of  science, —  that  which  passes  under  the 
general  name  of  biology,  the  science  of  life.  There  has 
been  a  complete  change  in  our  conception  of  the  origin  and 
nature  of  man.  We  have  found  out  that  this  old  world  of 
ours  is  indeed  very  old,  not  a  new  creation, —  so  old  that  all 
our  methods  of  computing  time  seem  vague  and  useless 
when  we  attempt  to  grasp  the  long  reaches  of  the  years. 
We  have  found  out,  also,  that  not  only  is  this  earth-home  of 
man  very  old,  but  that  the  race  itself  is  very  old.  We  are 
no  parvenus  in  the  universe  or  on  this  planet.  Instead  of 
six  thousand  years,  we  must  probably  say  sixty  thousand, 
perhaps  twice  or  thrice  sixty  thousand,  years  are  the  meas- 


14  Religious  Reconstruction 

ure  of  the  existence  of  man  in  his  earth-home.  We  have 
changed  completely  our  conception  of  the  origin  of  man. 
We  think  of  him  no  longer  as  placed  here  suddenly  by  the 
fiat  of  the  Almighty  Power,  complete  and  perfect  in  body, 
mind,  and  soul,  and  as  capable,  therefore,  of  a  free  choice 
that  might  justly  decide  his  eternal  destiny.  It  is  no  part  of 
my  purpose  to  detail  the  changes,  this  morning,  that  have 
passed  over  the  universe.  I  merely  note  the  fact  that  the 
educated  and  free  minds  of  Europe  and  America  no  longer 
hold  the  old  theory  concerning  the  origin,  the  nature,  and 
the  character  of  man.  This,  of  course,  must  change  our 
conception  of  his  relation  to  God,  our  conception  of  sin  and 
evil,  and  the  causes  that  have  brought  them  into  existence. 

A  third  change  has  come  over  the  modern  universe. 
There  has  been  a  revolution  in  criticism.  There  has  arisen 
—  what  our  fathers  did  not  dream  of  the  existence  of  —  a 
science  of  historic  criticism.  We  have  studied  the  other  re- 
ligions of  the  world  as  well  as  Christianity,  and  have  ob- 
served the  origin  of  these  religions.  We  have  traced  their 
natural  methods  of  growth.  We  have  seen  that,  instead  of 
coming  down  out  of  heaven  completely  made  and  finished, 
they  have  been  the  slow  and  gradual  growth  of  the  human 
heart,  the  reaching  up  of  humanity  towards  heaven.  They 
have  been  no  less  divine,  mark  you,  no  less  the  work  of  the 
spirit  of  God,  because  slow  in  their  progress  and  incomplete, 
because  unfinished  and  the  product  of  earth  instead  of 
being  of  direct  descent  from  heaven.  And  the  conviction 
has  forced  itself  upon  the  great  body  of  intelligent  minds 
that  what  is  true  of  the  other  religions  of  the  world  may,  at 
least,  be  true  of  Christianity,  even  if  we  are  not  ready  to  say 
must  be.  This  historical  criticism  has  applied  itself,  also,  to 
the  study  of  the  Scriptures.  We  have  found  not  one  infalli- 
ble Bible,  but  many,  each  of  them  presenting  claims  to  infal- 


Present  Conditions  of  Religiotis  TJwught         1 5 

libility.  We  have  studied  the  method  by  which  sacred 
books  have  become  sacred.  We  have  seen  how  they  have 
grown  up  as  the  natural  product  of  the  religious  nature  of 
man,  which  has  surrounded  them  with  reverence  and  lifted 
them  up  to  a  pedestal  of  sanctity,  so  that,  in  other  religions 
as  well  as  Christianity,  men  have  come  to  stand  in  awe  of 
the  letter,  and  have  feared  to  question  it. 

Again,  as  the  result  of  the  civilization  of  the  world,  there 
has  come  what  may  rightly  be  called  a  revolution  in  the 
human  heart,  a  revolution  in  our  human  sense  as  to  the  jus- 
tice and  mercy  and  rightfulness  of  these  old  religious  the- 
ories that  have  been  pressed  upon  us  as  the  work  of  God. 
This  feeling  in  many  hearts  has  been  beautifully  voiced  by 
Whittier's  "  Eternal  Goodness."  I  give  two  verses  as  illus- 
trating what  I  mean  by  the  change  that  is  passing  over  the 
sentiment  of  the  world  :  — 

"  I  trace  your  lines  of  argument, 

Your  logic  linked  and  strong ; 
I  weigh  as  one  who  dreads  dissent, 
And  fears  a  doubt  as  wrong. 

"  But  still  my  human  hands  are  wtak 

To  hold  your  iron  creeds  : 
Against  the  words  ye  bid  me  speak, 
My  heart  within  me  pleads." 

In  other  words,  the  level  of  our  human  ideal  of  what  is 
right  and  just  has  risen,  so  that  we  rebel  against  the  old 
conception  of  God  and  of  his  dealing  with  men,  and  say: 
No  matter  for  your  proofs.  It  cannot  be  so.  God  cannot 
be  as  you  have  described  him.  He  cannot  so  treat  his  chil- 
dren. It  is  not  part  of  my  purpose  to-day  to  justify  this 
feeling.  I  note  it  as  a  fact ;  and  it  is  a  fact  which  weighs 
with  thousands  who  would  not  attempt  to  justify  by  logic  the 
feeling  that  they  still  assert  must  be  true. 


1 6  Religious  Reconstruction 

These,  then,  are  indications  of  the  things  that  have  hap- 
pened since  the  days  of  our  fathers. 

I  wish  now  to  note  a  few  results  of  these  changes.  I  hold 
it  no  light  thing  for  a  man  to  disturb  the  settled  religious 
convictions  of  his  fellows.  I  have  no  word  of  sympathy  for 
the  flippancy  that  talks  for  ttne  sake  of  talking  or  of  tearing 
down  old  and  sacredly  held  beliefs.  Religious  theories  are 
sacred  things.  They  have  been  baptized  by  the  tears  of 
thousands.  They  have  been  fused  in  the  heat  of  human 
love  and  human  aspiration.  They  have  taken  shape  as  the 
result  of  the  best  thought  of  some  of  the  grandest  men  of 
the  world.  Touch  them  not  carelessly  or  lightly,  then ;  for 
not  only  are  they  religious  convictions,  but  generally  the 
moral  motives  of  most  men  are  inextricably  entwined  with 
their  religious  theories,  so  that,  if  you  touch  these,  they  feel 
drifted  from  their  moral  moorings  and  know  not  which  way 
to  go.  But  there  is  sometimes  less  danger  in  reconstruction 
than  there  is  in  leaving  things  as  they  are. 

Who  is  responsible  for  these  changes  that  have  been  going 
on  ?  Mr.  Spencer,  Mr.  Darwin,  Mr.  Huxley,  Mr.  Matthew 
Arnold,  Mr.  Lecky  ?  These  men  ?  I  mention  these  only 
as  specimens  of  the  representatives  of  modern  theology  and 
modern  thought.  These  men  have  not  created  the  facts. 
They  have  simply  reported.  They  are  not  the  causes  of 
this  condition  of  things.  They  are  the  symptoms,  the  out- 
growth, the  voices  of  it.  The  cause  of  this  condition  of 
things  is  a  growing  civilization  under  the  impulse  of  the 
same  God  who  has  created  all  the  past.  If  it  be  true  that 
the  world  has  been  brought  to  its  present  condition  accord- 
ing to  the  theory  of  evolution  instead  of  by  some  other 
method,  then  certainly  the  man  who  has  merely  found  it  out 
is  not  responsible  for  it.  The  Eternal,  of  whom  all  truth  is 
only  a  manifestation,  he  is  responsible  for  the  truth  which 


"s£ 

Present  Conditions  of  Keligious   Thought         17 

human  eyes  only  see  and  which  human  hearts  bow  before. 
The  time  comes,  then,  when  the  only  safety  is  in  reconstruc- 
tion,—  in  facing  facts  and  recognizing  things  as  they  are.  A 
man's  storehouse  that  he  has  occupied  may,  in  the  process 
of  years,  become  unsafe ;  but  he  says,  I  do  not  like  to 
disturb  it,  as  it  will  interfere  seriously  with  my  business. 
But,  if  he  waits  long  enough,  the  time  comes  when  not  dis- 
turbing it  interferes  with  his  business  a  good  deal  more 
seriously  than  that  disturbance  which  means  reconstruction 
and  putting  things  in  a  condition  of  safety.  So  the  time 
comes,  under  the  increasing  new  light,  the  dawning  of  wider 
day,  when  men  must  face  the  new  facts,  when  they  must 
reconstruct  their  theories  in  accordance  with  them,  or  there 
will  be  greater  religious  and  moral  suffering,  disintegration, 
and  decay  than  any  amount  of  doubt  could  have  produced. 

What  are,  then,  some  of  the  things  going  on  about  us  that 
intimate  that  these  changes  are  in  the  air  ?  I  wish  to  note 
a  few  as  specimens.  First,  the  American  Board  stands  for 
one.  What  is  the  attitude  of  the  American  Board?  It 
represents  the  churches ;  and  its  late  decision  at  Springfield 
means,  simply,  that  the  majority  of  the  churches  still  hold 
the  old  theory  of  the  universe,  still  hold  that  conception 
of  God,  still  hold  the  old  ideas  of  the  condition  and  destiny 
of  man.  That  is  all.  The  majority  vote  came  to  its  natural 
result  in  their  councils ;  and  I  have  no  sort  of  sympathy  with 
the  outcry  made  against  the  majority  in  the  American  Board. 
I  have  no  sympathy  with  the  flippancy  of  the  daily  press  in 
its  criticisms  of  the  action  of  the  American  Board  or  with 
the  editorials  that  have  been  written  in  criticism  of  it.  The 
American  Board  simply  stood  by  its  flag,  stood  by  its  con- 
victions. It  believes  that  the  men  in  China  and  Japan  and 
India,  who  are  not  converted  to  particular  theological  beliefs 
by  particular  methods,  are  lost.  As  honest  men,  what  should 


1 8  Religious  Reconstruction 

they  do,  then,  but  stand  by  their  guns  ?  Prof.  Park  said, 
two  or  three  years  ago,  that  this  new  dogma  as  to  a  second 
probation  for  those  who  had  not  a  chance  to  hear  the  gospel 
in  this  world  would  "  cut  the  nerve  of  missions  "  ;  and  he  was 
wise  and  far-seeing  in  his  statement.  What  was  the  result  ? 
There  was  a  deficiency,  last  year,  of  something  like  $200,000 
in  their  receipts.  If  men  believe  that  the  heathen  are  to  be 
lost  unless  saved  by  their  scheme  and  plan  of  salvation,  then 
farmers  and  hard-working  men  and  women  all  over  the 
land  may  well  pinch  and  save  their  dollars,  and  even  their 
pennies,  that,  if  they  cannot  send  a  man,  they  may  at  least 
send  a  tract,  to  tell  them  of  their  danger.  But  the  moment 
you  make  them  believe  that  the  danger  is  not  quite  so  immi- 
nent, that  it  is  even  possible  that  the  heathen  may  have 
another  opportunity,  then  why  should  they  pinch  and  save  ? 
Why  should  they  put  themselves  to  inconvenience?  Why 
should  they  neglect  friends,  families,  neighbors  ?  Why 
should  they  take  money  which  is  needed  at  their  doors,  for 
the  sake  of  carrying  on  the  general  work  of  civilization 
which  will  come  by  natural  processes  in  its  own  time  ?  If 
all  that  the  missionary  work  means,  as  is  intimated  by  a 
good  many  of  the  criticisms,  is  bringing  the  nations  of  heath- 
endom to  our  system  of  education  and  our  civilized  ideas, 
why  should  they  do  anything  special  for  them  ?  Commerce 
will  take  care  of  that.  The  general  intercommunication  of 
ideas  that  is  going  on  so  rapidly  will  take  care  of  that,  if 
that  is  all.  There  is,  then,  no  need  of  the  American  Board ; 
and  those  who  are  anxious  to  have  the  American  Board 
give  up  those  old  ideas  are  simply  advising  it  to  commit 
suicide.  You  will  not  misunderstand  me.  You  know  how 
glad  I  am  of  the  change  that  is  going  on.  I  am  only  talking 
in  the  interest  of  consistency.  As  an  indication  of  how 
rapid  the  change  is,  it  is  almost  amusing  —  or  it  would  be, 


Present  Conditions  of  Religious   Thought         19 

if  the  subject  were  not  so  serious  —  to  know  that  there  are 
not  more  than  one  or  two  orthodox  Congregational  ministers 
in  Boston  to-day  who  could  be  appointed  to  preach  the 
gospel  to  the  heathen.  They  will  do  very  well  to  preach  in 
Boston  ;  but  it  would  not  be  safe  to  trust  them  in  other  lands. 

As  another  indication,  I  need  only  speak  the  word  An- 
dover.  There  is  no  sort  of  question  that  the  creed  which 
the  Andover  professors  are  obliged  to  sign  every  five  years 
was  framed  with  the  express  intent  to  prevent  the  precise 
thing  that  is  going  on.  It  was  born  in  the  days  of  the  old 
Trinitarian  controversy,  and  was  founded  as  a  bulwark 
against  modern  thought,  a  defence  and  fortress  against 
Unitarianism.  What  right,  then,  have  any  set  of  men  to 
divert  a  trust  fund  like  that  into  the  teaching  of  the  very 
things  it  was  arranged  to  prevent  ?  I  have  all  sympathy 
with  the  professors  at  Andover.  I  love  some  of  them  as 
personal  friends.  I  have  no  intellectual  respect  for  their 
position.  They  signed  a  creed  that  they  do  not  believe,  and 
that  they  tell  you  they  do  not  believe ;  and  they  claim  the 
right  in  some  way  to  divert  the  purpose  of  the  money  which 
was  used  in  its  foundation  to  teaching  that  which  the  founder 
himself  detested  with  his  whole  soul.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  only  honest  thing  is  to  do  one  of  two  things, —  either 
apply  to  the  legal  authorities  of  the  Commonwealth  to  change 
the  conditions  of  the  trust,  or  else  walk  manfully  out  of  the 
front  door  of  the  institution,  and  leave  it  to  itself.  I  see 
not  how  honest,  clear-headed  men  can  help  doing  one  or  the 
other.  But  the  change  that  I  speak  of  has  been  going  on, 
as  you  see,  until  it  has  infected  these  teachers,  so  that  every 
man  at  Andover  to-day  is  a  heretic,  in  the  light  of  the  teach- 
ing of  the  fathers  and  the  founders  of  that  institution. 

Another  indication  of  the  change  that  is  going  on.  You 
find  in  almost  all  the  great  churches  of  this  country  that 


2O  Religious  Reconstruction 

there  has  been  an  insensible  change  passing  over  the  minds 
of  the  men  that  sit  in  the  pews.  They  do  not  like  to 
hear  any  longer  the  old  doctrines  preached ;  and  this  feel- 
ing has  become  so  influential  that  the  ministers  in  the  pulpits 
are  largely  silent  concerning  them.  Dr.  Parker,  of  England, 
told  us  the  other  day,  at  Tremont  Temple,  that  there  was 
very  little  preaching  of  the  old  doctrines  in  London  now; 
and  yet,  if  those  doctrines  are  true,  there  is  nothing  that 
ought  to  be  preached  so  much,  so  often,  with  such  intense 
and  awful  earnestness.  If  they  be  not  true,  then  it  is  a 
pretence  and  a  sham  to  have  them  in  the  cre.eds  and  to 
swear  that  you  believe  them.  Not  only  are  there  many  of 
these  men  that  are  so  influenced,  but  you  will  find  the 
great  majority  in  many  of  the  churches  do  not  like  the 
old  statements  of  theological  doctrine ;  and,  if  they  were 
preached  consistently,  they  would  leave  the  churches,  and 
get  beyond  the  possibility  of  hearing  them. 

Then  there  is  another  body  of  men,  who  have  gone  out  of 
the  churches,  who  are  no  longer  within  the  range  of  their 
influence,  who  have  been  taught  that  religion  and  the  popu- 
lar theology  were  practically  the  same  thing ;  and,  having 
become  convinced  that  the  popular  theology  is  superstition, - 
they  think  religion  is  superstition,  and  they  have  given  up 
being  religious.  They  think  there  is  no  reason  why  an  edu- 
cated, earnest  man  should  pay  attention  to  religion.  They 
are  beyond  the  reach  of  its  influence.  They  need,  if  relig- 
ion be  still  a  matter  of  importance,  to  be  taught  the  new 
conception  of  the  religious  life,  and  that  there  is  still  basis 
in  the  nature  of  things  for  being  religious,  and  deeply  re- 
ligious. 

Then  there  is  another  class, —  a  class  that  I  come  in  con- 
tact with  almost  every  day, —  men  who,  whether  they  attend 
the  old  churches  or  not,  have,  in  some  indefinable  sort  of 


Present  Conditions  of  Religious   Thought         21 

way,  come  to  feel  that  the  old  ideas  no  longer  hold  them 
with  any  earnest  grip.  If  they  say  they  believe  them,  they 
cannot  tell  why  or  define  them.  But  they  still  go  on,  with 
father  or  mother  or  friend,  or  from  habit,  to  the  old  churches, 
because  they  say  :  Suppose  I  give  this  up,  which  way  shall  I 
go  ?  What  is  there  to  take  the  place  of  them  ?  It  seems 
to  them  like  giving  up  everything,  and  going  out-of-doors 
into  an  unsheltered  religious  life.  They  have  a  conviction 
that  they  get  perhaps  a  little  benefit,  that  there  is  something 
good  in  being  religious  and  connected,  even  in  the  loosest 
way,  with  a  church;  and  they  do  not  like  to  surrender  it. 
They  will  not  go  out  until  they  have  somewhere  to  go ;  and 
they  need  light  and  guidance. 

These  are  indications  of  some  of  the  conditions  of  relig- 
ious thought  that  seem  to  me  to  demand  earnest  and  patient 
work  in  the  way  of  religious  reconstruction. 

We  need  to  consider  that  one  of  two  things  is  true.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  the  world's  being  "sort  of"  lost,  "kind 
of"  lost,  almost  lost,  partly  lost.  One  of  two  things  is  true ; 
and  we  need,  and  the  modern  world  needs,  to  face  it.  Half- 
way Unitarians  need  to  face  it.  So-called  liberal  orthodox 
people  need  to  face  it.  And  it  is  because  of  my  con- 
viction of  this  great  truth  that  I  have  taken  the  position 
that  I  have  in  reference  to  the  American  Board  and  to 
Andover.  Either  this  world  is  lost  and  under  the  curse 
and  wrath  of  God  or  it  is  not.  One  of  the  two  is  true. 
Either  every  man,  woman,  and  child  in  it  is  doomed,  and 
justly  doomed,  to  endless  misery,  or  they  are  not.  They 
are  not  half-way  doomed  to  endless  misery,  partly  doomed, 
partly  under  God's  wrath,  partly  lost,  half  one  thing  and 
half  the  other.  Either  this  theory  is  true  or  it  is  not  true. 
If  it  is  true,  and  if  these  men  to  whom  I  have  referred 
believe  it  is  true,  then  they  are  consistent,  honest,  earnest 


22  Religious  Reconstruction 

men ;  and  I  honor  them.  But,  if  it  be  not  true,  then  the 
whole  scheme  of  doctrine  which  constitutes  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation is  something  we  no  longer  need.  There  is  no  one 
of  the  old  doctrines  of  Orthodoxy  that  is  not  part  of  the 
plan  for  delivering  man  from  the  ruin  that  came  upon  him 
from  the  fall.  Now,  if  there  has  been  no  fall,  if  man  is  not 
thus  ruined,  if  God  does  not  look  on  him  this  way  and  is 
not  going  to  treat  him  in  this  fashion,  then  there  is  no  reason 
why  this  doctrine  should  be  still  insisted  on  as  necessary, 
nor  that  it  should  be  indefinitely  and  half-way  held.  There 
is  no  necessity  for  it,  unless  the  human  race  is  fallen  and 
ruined. 

What  we  need  to  do  to-day  is  to  turn  square  round  and 
accept  the  other  alternative,  if  we  do  not  accept  this.  If 
this  is  a  race  that  has  been  developing  for  thousands  of 
years,  beginning  on  the  borders  of  the  animal  world  and 
climbing  slowly  up  to  our  present  position;  if,  under  the 
providence  of  God,  we  are  going  on  in  the  process  of  edu- 
cation and  development, —  that  is  one  thing.  If  we  believe 
it,  let  us  give  our  money,  our  thought,  our  means,  the  lavish 
outpouring  of  our  efforts,  to  the  accomplishment  of  the  kind 
of  work  that  is  needed.  Only  consider  the  loss  of  time,  of 
money,  of  love,  of  effort,  poured  out  into  what  are  practically 
useless  channels,  provided  that  be  not  the  condition  of  the 
human  race.  If  all  the  ingenuity,  all  the  thought,  the 
money,  and  the  work  could  be  directed  to  facing  the  real 
facts  of  the  condition  of  man  and  helping  him  upward  in 
the  pathway  of  progress  towards  the  real  God,  who  has  led 
him  to  the  present  hour,  think  of  the  gain,  the  immense 
advance,  that  might  be  made !  Now,  these  men  of  the 
olden  time  believed  that  they  had  a  theory  which  matched 
the  facts.  They  did  their  best  in  the  light  of  their  age. 
They  created  theories  of  man  and  of  his  destiny.  They 


Present  Conditions  of  Religious   Thought         23 

thought  that  this  great  scheme  was  the  counterpart  of  the 
reality.  They  fought  for  it,  worked  for  it ;  and  they  were 
grand  in  their  earnestness  and  sincerity. 

Let  us  see  what  I  believe  to  be  the  one  necessity  of  the 
modern  world, —  the  need  of  having  a  working  theory  of  life 
as  real  to  us  as  theirs  was  to  them.  Let  us  have  a  living 
thought  of  God,  a  living  thought  of  his  universe,  a  living 
thought  of  the  nature  of  man,  his  needs,  and  his  destiny. 
Let  us  have  something  that  shall  satisfy  the  brain,  so  that 
we  can  respect  ourselves  intellectually  ;  that  shall  be  motive 
for  the  heart,  that  we  may  feel  there  is  something  worth 
living  for.  Let  us  face  the  real  facts  of  the  universe  con- 
sistently, earnestly,  flinging  away  the  old  ideas,  if  we  do  not 
hold  them  any  more.  Let  us  front  the  new  universe,  and 
catch  the  first  rays  of  God's  new  sunrise.  Let  us  take  hold 
of  the  work  we  are  called  upon  to  do  to-day,  and  not  content 
ourselves  with  criticising  the  fathers,  while  willing  to  be  not 
half  so  grand,  so  consistent,  so  manly,  so  true  as  they. 


RELIGION  AND  THEOLOGY. 


"  I  LOVE  flowers,  but  I  hate  botany ;  I  love  religion,  but 
I  hate  theology."  These  are  not  my  words :  I  am  quoting 
them.  I  quote,  indeed,  from  memory ;  but,  whether  they  are 
verbally  accurate  or  not,  I  am  quite  sure  of  the  accuracy  of 
the  thought.  They  are  words  which  are  reported  to  have 
been  uttered  here  by  a  popular  evangelist  within  a  year,  and 
they  undoubtedly  express  a  very  wide-spread  popular  feeling. 
And  yet  there  is  the  most  delicious  absurdity  underlying 
them.  As  though  there  could  be  the  fair  outline,  the  dainty 
tinting,  the  sweet  fragrance,  of  the  violet  or  the  rose,  except 
for  the  underlying  plan,  the  fibrous  framework,  that  supports 
it  and  enables  it  to  be ! 

The  other  night,  in  Tremont  Temple,  the  Rev.  Joseph 
Parker,  D.D.,  of  London,  spoke  very  earnestly  against  sci- 
entific theologians,  going  so  far  as  to  say, —  what  I  think  he 
himself  would  admit  to  be  a  little  exaggeration, —  that  they 
had  been  guilty  of  more  injury  to  religion  than  all  the  in- 
fidels. As  though  there  could  be  rational  religion  —  religion 
that  could  appeal  to  men's  brains,  that  they  could  hold  with 
personal  self-respect — without  careful,  systematic,  underlying 
thought !  Every  little  while,  you  will  hear  persons,  particu- 
larly among  the  attendants  at  the  old  churches,  expressing 
their  rejoicing  over  the  fact  that  their  minister  does  not  any 
longer  preach  theology.  They  will  tell  you  that  he  gives 
them  only  practical,  every-day  sermons,  sermons  intended  to 


Religion  and  Theology  25 

help  in  daily  life.  As  though  a  sermon  could  be  practical 
and  could  be  of  any  value  as  a  help  to  any  one,  unless  under- 
lying it  there  was  a  theory  of  life,  unless  it  told  which  way 
to  go  and  what  to  do,  and  unless  it  contained  a  reason  as 
to  why!  And  they  will  add  sometimes,  as  an  explanation, 
showing  really  what  they  are  thinking,  that  their  minister 
does,  indeed,  once  in  .a  while, —  once  a  year,  perhaps, — 
bring  out  his  old  theology  and  give  a  theological  sermon ; 
and  then  he  will  put  it  away  again  for  another  year.  If, 
indeed,  this  be  true,  it  is  an  insult  both  to  the  minister's 
brain  and  to  his  honesty.  I  speak  of  this,  however,  as  indi- 
cating a  popular  type  of  thought,  or  what  passes  for  thought, 
at  the  present  time.  It  is  a  popular  type  of  feeling,  rather 
let  me  say. 

Now,  let  us  face  this  matter  for  a  few  moments,  and  really 
see  just  what  we  mean.  It  requires  only  a  little  thought 
to  convince  us  that  theory  underlies  everything.  Theory 
underlies  practice  in  every  department  of  human  life.  When 
people  are  talking  about  religion  and  theology,  what  do  they 
mean  precisely?  If  you  press  them  a  little  closely,  I  sup- 
pose that  they  would  concede  it  is  something  like  this: 
religion  covers,  to  their  minds,  the  practical,  every-day  good- 
ness of  human  life.  It  is  the  way  people  feel ;  it  is  the  way 
they  treat  their  neighbors  j  it  is  the  way  they  conduct  their 
business ;  it  is  a  question  of  honesty,  of  purity,  of  truth,  of 
integrity;  it  is,  in  a  general  way,  a  question  of  goodness. 
Theology,  these  people  think,  is  only  theorizing, —  something 
that  is  in  the  air,  that  may  very  well  be  separated  from  this 
practical  goodness.  But,  underlying  all  practical  goodness 
that  passes  under  the  name  of  religion,  everywhere  and 
always,  is  theology ;  for  theology  is  nothing  more  nor  less 
than  the  theory  of  religion,  the  theory  of  goodness,  the 
theory  of  feeling  and  conduct  that  we  cherish  and  practise. 


26  Religious  Reconstruction 

Theory,  then,  as  I  have  said,  underlies  everything,  as  any 
man  who  has  ever  given  two  thoughts  to  it  in  his  life  will 
see.  From  the  time  he  rises  in  the  morning  until  he  goes 
to  sleep  at  night, —  in  his  business ;  in  his  store,  if  he  is  a 
merchant ;  in  his  lawyer's  office,  if  he  is  a  lawyer ;  in  his 
work  as  a  mechanic,  if  he  is  a  mechanic ;  in  his  day  labor, 
if  he  is  to  be  a  day  laborer, —  wherever  he  may  be  and 
whatever  engaged  in,  he  is  working  on  a  theory,  a  theory 
as  to  how  this  particular  thing  can  best  be  performed, 
though  he  may  never  have  waked  up  to  think  of  it  as  a 
theory.  He  may  never  have  asked  himself  a  question  about 
it  in  his  life.  He  may  have  inherited  it,  or  borrowed  it,  or 
have  come  into  possession  of  it  in  some  unconscious  way; 
but  every  step  he  takes,  every  word  he  speaks,  every  action 
he  does,  implies  an  underlying  theory  of  life.  Not  only 
that,  but  the  amount  of  success  which  he  attains  depends 
always,  other  things  being  equal,  upon  the  general  accuracy 
of  his  theory.  If  he  succeeds  without  thinking  anything 
about  it,  it  is  because  he  has  stumbled,  or  blundered,  into 
the  possession  of  a  theory  sufficiently  accurate  to  lead  him 
to  success.  All  the  failure  in  the  world  comes  from  the 
single  fact  that  men  misconceive  the  actual  realities  of  the 
universe  about  them,  have  false  theories  about  them,  and 
this  leads  them  into  false  methods  and  ways  of  conduct. 
Take  the  farmer  as  an  illustration.  He  may  never  have 
thought  much  about  the  matter  of  soil,  of  enriching  it,  or 
as  to  what  crops  he  ought  to  plant  in  particular  fields,  or 
of  the  general  methods  of  his  work ;  but  even  the  stupidest 
farmer  in  all  New  England  is  working  every  year  upon  some- 
body's theory  as  to  how  the  work  on  a  farm  ought  to  be 
carried  on.  Perhaps  he  has  picked  it  up  from  his  father 
where  he  left  it,  and  has  never  attempted  to  improve  it; 
but  he  is  working  out  somebody's  theory,  and  the  measure 


Religion  and  Theology  27 

of  his  success  depends  on  the  measure  of  the  accuracy  of 
the  theory  on  which  he  is  working,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously. But,  if  he  is  ever  to  make  any  improvement  in 
his  farm,  it  will  be  done,  in  the  first  instance,  by  thought 
and  study  that  will  enable  him  to  form  a  better  theory  as 
to  how  his  work  ought  to  be  carried  on. 

Let  me  give  you  one  more  illustration.  We  have  been 
considerably  exercised  in  Boston  lately  over  the  success  of 
the  famous  yacht  that  has  been  designed  and  planned  by 
a  Boston  man.  We  are  proud  of  the  fact  that  to-day  we 
stand  as  champions  of  the  world  in  this  particular.  But,  if 
you  will  give  it  a  little  careful  thought,  you  will  arrive  at  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  not  the  hurrahing  and  waving  of  hand- 
kerchiefs and  hats  of  the  crowd  on  the  day  of  the  race  that 
won  it :  it  was  not  anything  that  occurred  on  that  day  which 
determined  where  the  victory  should  lie.  It  was  careful, 
patient,  persistent  study  and  thought  in  the  quiet  office  of 
Mr.  Burgess  that  won  the  race.  It  was  theory,  one  theory 
beating  another,  a  theory  incarnated.  It  was  because  this 
particular  yacht  was  built  more  perfectly  in  accordance  with 
the  eternal  laws  of  God,  as  embodied  in  wave  and  wind  ; 
and  it  was  the  man  who  studied  these  with  the  most  accu- 
racy and  embodied  them  in  the  most  perfect  theory  that  won 
the  race.  When  the  theory  was  devised,  the  race  was  won ; 
and  that  which  occurred  on  a  particular  day  in  New  York 
Harbor  was  only  the  carrying  out  of  that  which  was  pre- 
determined in  the  nature  of  things. 

Take,  again,  the  case  of  the  late  war  between  France  and 
Germany.  It  was  not  because  the  German  soldiers,  man  for 
man,  had  more  enthusiasm,  bravery,  daring,  that  they  won 
the  victory.  It  was  because  the  grandest  military  theorist  of 
the  age  fought  out  the  campaign  from  beginning  to  end, 
thought  out  the  methods  of  carrying  on  the  warfare,  the  the- 


28  Religious  Reconstruction 

ories  pertaining  even  to  the  kind  of  step  which  the  soldier 
should  take  on  his  march,  as  well  as  the  very  implements  — 
gun  and  cannon  —  that  should  be  used  in  the  campaign.  It 
was  Von  Moltke,  before  a  drum  had  been  beaten,  that  humil- 
iated France. 

Suppose  you  have  a  sick  child  in  the  house,  and  call  a 
physician,  and  say  to  him:  "Doctor,  I  don't  care  anything 
about  your  theory,  or  anything  about  your  studies.  All  I 
want  is  that  you  should  cure  my  child."  If  the  doctor  is 
a  wise  man,  he  would  say :  "  My  dear  sir  "  or  "  madam,  it 
is  my  theory  concerning  the  structure  of  the  body,  it  is  my 
theory  concerning  the  nature  of  the  disease,  it  is  my  theory 
as  to  the  power  of  the  elements  and  combinations  that  make 
up  my  medicines,  and  as  to  the  way  they  work  particular 
results,  that  makes  me  a  physician,  that  enables  me  to  act 
wisely,  and  that  determines  beforehand,  before  I  have  ad- 
ministered one  single  dose  of  medicine,  whether  I  shall  be 
able  to  heal  or  not." 

Theology  is  not  quite  so  unpractical  a  thing  as  the  popu- 
lar feeling  of  this  age  declares  it  to  be.  Consider  for  a 
moment  the  part  that  clear-cut,  earnest,  religious  thought 
has  played  in  the  great  epochs  of  the  world.  What  was  it 
that  made  Mr.  Wesley's  mighty  power  in  England  a  hun- 
dred years  ago  ?  What  was  it  that  created  that  great  up- 
heaval or  revival  of  religious  feeling  that  swept  over  the 
kingdom?  What  was  it  that  created  that  great  movement 
which  crossed  the  Atlantic,  and  has  made  one  of  the  grandest 
popular  churches  of  America  to-day  ?  It  was  nothing  more 
nor  less  than  the  new  thought  of  John  Wesley.  It  started  in 
his  brain, —  a  new  thought  about  God,  a  new  thought  about 
men,  a  new  thought  about  the  organization  and  function  and 
work  of  the  Church.  It  was  this  that  kindled  this  new  life, 
and  produced  all  the  magnificent  results.  It  was  the  thought 


Religion  and  Theology  29 

of  Wyclif  that  so  disturbed  Rome,  and  made  him  the  dan- 
gerous man  he  was  to  the  Middle  Age  conception,  that  made 
him  the  morning  star  of  the  English  Reformation.  It  was 
the  new  thought  of  John  Huss  that  turned  him  into  so 
dangerous  an  enemy  of  the  old  ideas  that  he  had  to  be 
burned  at  the  stake.  It  was  the  new  thought  of  Savonarola 
that  revolutionized  Florence.  It  was  the  new  thought  of 
Servetus  that  made  him  so  dangerous  to  Calvin  that  at  any 
price  he  must  be  got  out  of  the  way.  It  was  the  new 
thought  of  Calvin  himself  that  made  him  a  dictator,  and  the 
dominant  force  that  he  has  been  for  hundreds  of  years.  It 
was  the  new  thought  of  Martin  Luther  about  the  Bible  and 
the  method  of  salvation,  as  to  the  relation  which  God 
maintains  towards  his  world,  which  kindled  the  fire  of  en- 
thusiasm which  swept  over  half  Europe,  and  burned  up  so 
many  of  the  old  superstitions,  and  prepared  new  fields  for 
the  growth  of  human  civilization.  It  was  the  new  thought 
of  Jesus  out  of  which  Christianity  itself  was  born.  Jesus 
was  no  such  man  as  these  people  who  inveigh  against 
creeds  and  against  theology,  and  say  all  that  we  want  is 
practical  religion,  have  supposed  him  to  be.  It  was  the  new 
thought  of  Jesus,  expressed  and  implied  in  every  throbbing 
word,  that  made  him  a  leader  of  the  new  religious  civiliza- 
tion. And  it  was  the  new  thought  that  is  connected  with 
the  name  of  Moses  that  created  the  religious  grandeur  and 
determined  the  career  of  Israel  for  four  thousand  years,  and 
made  them  the  guides  of  the  world  out  of  the  wilderness  of 
polytheism  into  the  conception  of  the  unity  of  the  universe 
as  ruled  by  one  great  power. 

Where  was,  later,  the  central  idea  of  Channing  and  his 
work  ?  What  differentiated  him  from  the  older  movements 
of  religious  life  in  New  England  ?  Out  of  what  was  our 
Unitarianism  born  ?  Out  of  a  new  and  grander  thought  of 


3O  Religious  Reconstruction 

God  and  man.  And,  when  Theodore  Parker  came,  that 
which  made  him  a  leader  of  his  time  was  that  his  thought 
had  gone  on  far  beyond  that  which  had  become  too  conserv- 
ative to  receive  or  reflect  anything  better  in  the  way  of 
religious  life.  Why  does  Unitarianism  exist  to-day  ?  What 
is  the  meaning  of  the  grand  liberal  movement  in  the  relig- 
ious life  of  the  modern  world  ?  It  means  only  that  we 
claim  to  have  a  better  theology.  That  is  the  root  and 
meaning  of  it  all.  We  have  new  light  on  these  great  prob- 
lems of  human  life.  We  have  gained  a  clearer  conception 
of  God,  we  claim.  We  are  nearer  the  truth  in  our  theories 
about  human  nature,  we  claim.  We  are  nearer  to  the  truth 
concerning  the  methods  by  which  men  are  to  be  brought 
into  better  relationship  to  God,  we  claim.  If  we  do  not 
believe  that  these  claims  are  well  founded,  then  we  have 
no  right  to  exist,  because  we  are  dividing  the  forces  of 
Christendom.  If  we  do  believe  that  these  claims  are  well 
founded,  if  we  do  believe  that  we  have  more  light  and 
higher,  broader,  deeper,  better  thought,  then  it  is  our  duty 
to  stand  by  this  thought,  to  teach  it,  to  help  lift  the  light 
which  has  been  intrusted  to  us,  in  order  that  men  may 
know  the  way.  That  is  what  all  light  is  for, —  to  teach  people 
the  way.  Knowing  the  way  is  of  no  account,  unless  people 
are  willing  to  walk  in  it,  of  course ;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
being  willing  to  walk  is  of  no  account,  unless  men  know  the 
way.  The  two  must  go  together :  the  knowledge,  the  theory, 
the  theology,  must  precede  the  taking  of  the  very  first  step 
of  practical  activity. 

Here,  then,  is  this  feeling  in  regard  to  theology,  this 
aversion,  this  liking  for  what  is  called  practical  religion, —  as 
though  the  two  could  be  opposed  to  each  other.  From 
what  has  this  feeling  sprung  ?  When  you  find  a  wide-spread 
feeling  on  the  part  of  the  people,  it  is  not  to  be  treated 


Religion  and   Theology  31 

lightly  or  as  of  no  account.  It  means  something;  it  has 
sprung  out  of  something.  What  has  this  sprung  out  of  ? 

In  the  first  place,  some  small  part  of  it  has  to  be  accounted 
for  by  the  impatience  of  certain  people  at  being  troubled  with 
anything  like  clear  and  consecutive  thought.  There  is  al- 
ways a  part  of  the  community  to  whom  it  is  a  pain  to  think. 
They  do  not  care  to  be  disturbed  in  this  way.  They  would 
rather  drift  or  go  with  the  crowd,  and  be  floated  on  by  the 
strongest  current.  But  I  do  not  think  that  this  is  a  very 
wide-spread  reason ;  for  I  believe  that  the  number  of  persons 
who  are  unwilling  to  think  is  less  than  ever  before.  Cer- 
tainly, I  do  not  believe  there  is  much  of  this  feeling  on  the 
part  of  those  who  come  to  hear  me  speak ;  for  I  note  the 
fact  with  joy,  and  as  complimentary  to  you,  that  always, 
since  I  have  been  in  this  city,  when  I  have  asked  the  hardest 
things  of  you  in  the  way  of  thinking,  I  have  received  the 
grandest  and  most  enthusiastic  response. 

There  is  another  thing.  Thousands  of  people  have  come 
to  feel  that  theological  discussion  is  valueless,  that  it 
amounts  to  nothing,  that  it  leads  nowhere,  that  it  does  not 
settle  problems  that  are  in  debate,  and  that  therefore  it  is 
not  worth  while.  Now,  we  need  to  use  just  a  little  clear 
thought  here,  and  draw  a  line  of  distinction.  When  two 
people  sit  down  and  dispute,  to  show  the  intellectual  training 
which  they  possess,  to  prove  what  intellectual  athletes  they 
are,  simply  to  show  what  they  can  do ;  when  their  object  is 
not  to  find  the  truth,  but  to  beat  their  opponent, —  then  dis- 
cussion of  that  sort,  instead  of  leading  to  high  thinking,  is 
useless  and  worse  than  useless,  because  it  frequently  degen- 
erates, and  leads  to  bad  blood,  dissension,  and  enmity.  But 
when  two  people  come  together  to  talk  concerning  any  great 
problem  of  importance  that  may  be  in  debate,  and  when 
both  of  them  are  animated  by  an  earnest  desire  to  find  the 


32  Religious  Reconstruction 

truth,  then  there  is  nothing  so  profitable  as  discussion  and 
debate.  It  is  just  this  discussion,  this  debate,  this  com- 
paring of  views,  this  weighing  of  evidence  on  this  side  and 
that,  that  has  settled  every  question  that  has  ever  been 
debated  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  If  we  are  ear- 
nest in  desiring  to  settle  these  great  problems,  then  debate 
in  this  spirit  —  not  of  winning  the  victory,  but  of  finding  the 
truth  —  is  of  the  utmost  importance. 

But  the  principal  reason,  as  I  am  convinced,  why  this 
feeling  exists  is  a  misconception  of  what  is  meant  by  theol- 
ogy. It  is  not  theology  which  people  dislike  so  much.  It 
is  the  particular  kind  of  theology  that  they  have  been  accus- 
tomed to  hear  described  under  that  name.  This  means, 
really,  that  the  people  are  tired  of  the  old  theology,  and 
wish  to  be  rid  of  it.  That  is  the  common,  the  principal  ex- 
planation of  all  this  wide-spread  feeling.  Suppose  I  should 
attempt  to  preach  to  you  to-day  one  of  the  sermons  of 
Jonathan  Edwards,  who  confessedly  was  one  of  the  mightiest 
preachers  the  world  has  ever  produced.  If  you  listened  at 
all,  it  would  be  with  a  dull  indifference,  or  else  with  indig- 
nant protest  against  the  views  there  presented.  People, 
even  in  the  most  orthodox  churches,  would  not  bear  the- 
preaching  of  Jonathan  Edwards  to-day.  Why?  They  will 
say,  because  they  do  not  like  theological  preaching.  What 
they  really  mean  is  that  they  do  not  like  the  theology  of 
Jonathan  Edwards.  They  have  outgrown  and  left  it  behind. 
It  is  no  longer  real :  it  is  not  alive  to-day.  But  go  back  to 
that  old  church  in  Northampton,  and  to  the  time  of  Jona- 
than Edwards,  and  see  how  people  listened  then.  It  was 
the  same  kind  of  human  nature  in  the  people  that  sat  in 
those  pews,  who  believed  with  their  whole  heart  and  soul 
the  theology  of  the  universe  that  Jonathan  Edwards  held, 
and  which  made  his  sermons  all  on  fire.  Men  listened  while 


Religion  and   Theology  33 

the  tears  ran  down  their  faces,  and  they  clutched  the  pews 
in  front  of  them,  as  if  to  save  them  from  sinking  into 
the  perdition  that  he  opened  under  their  feet ;  and  womenr 
in  hysterics,  fell  to  the  floor ;  while  excitement,  such  as  is 
almost  unknown  in  the  modern  churches,  was  produced  by 
those  sermons  that  seem  to  you  now  so  dead.  They  were 
alive  enough  then ;  and  it  is  not  because  they  were  theolog- 
ical that  you  do  not  like  them  to-day.  It  is  because  the 
theology  of  Edwards's  time  is  not  alive  to-day.  Those  the- 
ological sermons  were  most  intensely  practical  at  the  time. 
They  moulded  the  thought,  they  kindled  the  emotions,  they 
determined  the  practice,  of  those  who  breathlessly  heard. 

Study  any  religion  that  you  will, —  Christianity  or  any 
other, —  or  study  the  belief  of  any  particular  religious  de- 
nomination, and  you  will  find  this  to  be  universally  true : 
that  it  is  the  theory,  the  underlying  theology,  which  deter- 
mines what  it  shall  be.  What  is  the  difference  between 
Buddhism  and  Christianity  ?  It  is  not  a  difference  of  feel- 
ing, it  is  not  a  difference,  chiefly,  of  practical  living.  There 
is  something  behind  the  practical  living,  something  behind 
the  feeling, —  something  which  determines  the  feeling,  which 
moulds  the  practice.  What  is  that  ?  The  theology  always  : 
you  cannot  escape  it.  Sakya  had  a  certain  theory  of  the 
worlds,  of  the  origin  of  evil,  of  human  suffering,  of  the  gods, 
of  their  relation  to  men,  of  their  ability  or  their  willingness 
to  help  them ;  a  certain  theory  as  to  his  own  origin,  his  own 
mission,  what  he  was  in  the  world  for,  what  he  might  accom- 
plish. And  Buddhism,  in  all  its  infinite  ramifications,  is 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  out-blossoming  of  this  theory, 
this  theology  of  Sakya.  The  theory  determines  whether  peo- 
ple will  have  a  lofty  or  degraded  feeling  about  God.  You 
will  find,  it  is  said,  certain  tribes  in  some  parts  of  the  world 
which  never  sacrifice  to  their  deities.  They  only  bring 


34  Religious  Reconstruction 

flowers,  and  lay  them  as  an  offering  on  the  altar.  They  have 
a  theory,  a  theology,  of  God,  a  thought  about  him,  that  makes 
them  feel  that  he  does  not  need  to  be  placated,  that  he  does 
not  care  for  blood  and  groans  and  the  death  of  his  victims, 
and  that  he  is  to  be  worshipped  by  bringing  offerings  of 
fragrance  and  beauty.  It  is  their  theology  that  makes  them 
worship  in  that  way. 

If  you  could  have  visited  Mexico  in  the  times  of  Pizarro, 
and  seen  the  hundreds  of  human  victims  slaughtered  during 
those  cruel  years,  and  had  asked  why  this  sacrifice  of  life, 
you  would  have  found,  as  you  examined  it,  that  these  priests 
and  the  people  of  Mexico  had  a  theory  of  God,  a  theology, 
of  which  this  was  the  natural  and  necessary  expression. 
They  believed  that  their  God,  the  God  who  sat  in  the  heavens 
and  controlled  their  destiny,  wished  from  them  this  kind  of 
sacrifice  ;  and  they  dared  not  neglect  its  performance. 

But  are  there  no  evils  connected  with  theorizing,  with 
theology?  With  certain  kinds  of  theorizing  and  certain 
types  of  theology  there  are  evils  many  and  great.  I  wish  to 
note  some  of  them. 

The  principal  evil,  to  my  mind,  connected  with  the  theol- 
ogy that  needs  reconstruction  to-day  is  the  conviction,  which 
has  been  held  in  connection  with  almost  all  the  religions  of  the 
past,  that  their  theories  are  absolutely  and  finally  true,  that 
they  are  inspired  in  such  a  sense  as  to  be  infallible,  that  it 
is  wicked  to  question  or  change  or  even  talk  about  improving 
them.  This  is  the  principal  evil,  as  I  conceive  it,  connected 
with  the  theology  of  the  past  which  needs  to  be  done  away. 
Think  for  a  moment  what  some  of  the  evils  are  that  connect 
themselves  with  this  idea  of  infallibility. 

In  the  first  place,  the  result  that  meets  us  at  the  very 
threshold  is  the  stagnation  of  religious  thought.  In  the 
sphere  of  religion,  no  matter  what  may  be  true  anywhere 


Religion  and  Theology  35 

else,  men  have  done  thinking.  There  is  no  chance  for  im- 
provement. There  is  no  question  of  a  change.  Here  is  the 
infallible  revelation  of  God  in  its  final  form  ;  and  woe  be  to 
any  man  who  dares  to  touch  or  question  it !  Yet  the  human 
mind  in  every  other  department  goes  on,  asks  questions, 
receives  new  answers,  broadens  and  deepens,  gaining  ever  a 
deeper  view  of  the  universe,  while  the  popular  theology  be- 
longs to  two  or  three  thousand  years  ago.  It  is  the  religion 
of  a  Ptolemaic  instead  of  a  Copernican  universe;  and  it  has 
stayed  where  it  was  because  of  this  theory  of  the  infallibility 
connected  with  it. 

The  next  evil  is  that  it  turns  men  who  would  else  be  lov- 
ing, tender,  and  helpful,  into  bigots,  and  imbitters  their 
hearts  against  their  fellow-men;  and  no  wonder.  Suppose 
that  you  and  I  believed  that  we  had  a  theory,  the  acceptance 
of  which  in  its  unchanged  completeness  was  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  salvation  of  the  world,  and  that  any  man,  woman, 
or  child  who  did  not  accept  it  was  doomed  to  eternal  tor- 
ment. It  would  be  our  grandest  duty  to  prevent  any  one 
questioning,  touching,  or  changing  it,  so  far  as  lay  within  our 
power.  We  inveigh  against  the  horrors  of  the  Inquisition, 
the  atrocities  of  St.  Bartholomew's  Day ;  but  what  were  they 
compared  with  the  eternal  torment  of  millions  and  millions 
and  millions  of  souls  who  might  be  ruined  by  those  heretics, 
no  matter  how  honest,  that  the  Inquisition  and  St.  Bartholo- 
mew's Day  dealt  with  ?  It  would  be  mercy  to  wipe  off  the 
planet  the  inhabitants  of  a  continent,  even  though  they  were 
tortured  a  thousand  years  in  the  process,  rather  than  that 
they  should  be  the  means  of  eternal  torment  to  the  inhabi- 
tants of  two  continents  through  many  generations.  It  is 
the  theory  of  infallibility,  then,  that  was  responsible  for  St. 
Bartholomew  and  for  the  Inquisition. 

Another   evil.      It   divides    humanity   into    factions    and 


36  Religious  Reconstruction 

schools.  It  splits  up  into  warring  divisions  the  grand  army 
of  humanity  that  ought  to  be  marching  sympathetically  side 
by  side  in  one  united  force  against  the  opposition  of  evil. 
If  a  man  thinks  that  I  am  wrong,  and  wrong  in  such  a  way 
that  I  am  pernicious  to  my  fellow-men,  he  cannot  work  with 
me.  If  I  think  another  man  is  as  honest  as  I  am,  I  may 
hold  to  my  conviction  that  my  theory  is  right ;  but  so  long 
as  I  do  not  believe  that  it  is  infallible,  but  am  willing  to 
admit  that  I  may  make  a  mistake,  I  can  join  hands  with  him 
in  practical  work  and  in  the  search  for  truth.  So  there  can 
be  this  practical  sympathy  and  union  in  spite  of  theoretical 
differences. 

Then  there  is  one  more  evil,  one  connected  with  the  first 
that  I  mentioned ;  and  that  is  that  it  chains  the  religious 
world  to  barbaric  ideals  of  God,  of  worship,  of  religious  ser- 
vice, and  of  religious  life.  The  theory  of  infallibility  has  for 
a  thousand  years  consecrated  barbarism  as  divinity.  It  has 
taken  the  thought  of  the  wild  and  cruel  men  of  old,  of  the 
cave-men,  of  the  cannibal,  for  the  popular  conception  of 
God  as  connected  with  his  treatment  of  the  human  race.  It 
has  adopted  the  cave-man's  and  the  cannibal's  theory  of  di- 
vinity. It  is  the  way  they  would  treat  their  enemies,  there- 
fore that  is  the  way  their  god  is  going  to  treat  his.  It  takes 
this  theory  of  the  past,  and  makes  it  infallible.  Men  are 
afraid  to  question  it ;  and  so  you  find  whole  masses  of  men 
to-day  with  their  faces  towards  the  past,  and  clinging  to  the 
hideous  idols  of  the  old  world's  barbarism.  This  prevents 
religious  growth,  religious  civilization.  It  prevents  clarifying 
and  making  grand  our  theory,  our  image  of  God  that  we 
must  worship. 

Then  there  is  another  evil  connected  with  this  old  theol- 
ogy, and  with  any  theology,  for  that  matter ;  and  that  is  an 
evil  which  is  very  common, —  the  placing  the  means,  the 


Religion  and  Theology  37 

methods,  of  helping  men  above  the  welfare  of  the  men  them- 
selves. You  will  find  people  fighting  over  their  theories, 
their  theological  doctrines,  to  the  neglect  of  the  men  that  the 
theories  ought  to  be  serving. 

Suppose  there  was  a  life-saving  service  at  a  certain  point 
on  the  coast,  and  another  three  miles  away,  and  that  they 
were  furnished  with  different  appliances,  that  they  were  en- 
gaged in  different  methods  of  carrying  on  their  work, — meth- 
ods which  the  government  was  testing,  to  find  out  which  was 
of  more  efficacy.  Suppose  the  two  start  for  a  wreck,  and  the 
two  crews  are  so  set,  so  earnest,  in  the  belief  each  that  its 
own  way  is  the  best,  that  they  fall  to  fighting  on  their  way, 
while  the  wrecked  men  sink  and  drown.  No  method,  no 
appliance,  only  a  loving  heart  and  a  ready  hand  are  better 
than  all  their  appliances ;  and  yet  that  is  nothing  against  the 
appliances.  The  appliances  multiply  their  power  fifty-fold: 
only  they  should  be  used  not  for  their  own  sake,  but  for  the 
sake  of  helping  men.  So  it  is  nothing  against  theology  that 
doctors  of  divinity  fall  foul  of  each  other,  and  leave  men  to 
perish,  while  they  battle  over  their  own  peculiar  ideas.  That 
is  only  something  against  the  wisdom  of  the  theologians, 
nothing  against  the  value  of  clear  thought  as  to  the  method 
by  which  men  are  to  be  saved. 

Now,  a  question  arises,  which  we  must  face.  Is  it  possible 
for  us  to  have  a  clear  and  accurate  theory  of  the  universe,  a 
theology  so  perfect  that  it  will  supersede  all  others  ?  Perhaps 
not  yet.  A  perfect  theory,  a  perfect  theology,  I  take  it,  is  to 
be  found  only  in  the  mind  of  the  Infinite  himself.  But  some- 
thing of  great  importance  is  possible  for  us.  It  is  possible 
for  us  to  find  something  of  the  truth.  It  is  possible  for  us 
to  have  a  working  theory  of  life  that  shall  be  a  guide  and 
help  to  us.  And  it  is  possible,  as  comparing  one  theory  with 
another,  for  unbiassed  and  honest  men  to  determine  as  to 
which  of  them  is  the  more  likely  to  be  true.  It  is  not  possi- 


38  Religious  Reconstruction 

ble  that  there  should  be  the  same  amount  of  evidence  for 
two  contradictory  theories ;  and,  if  men  are  more  anxious  for 
the  truth  than  to  support  a  special  theory,  it  will  be  easy  to 
decide  on  which  side  the  evidence  lies  between  different  the- 
ories in  any  department  of  life,  theology  as  elsewhere.  And 
that  theory  is  to  be  accepted  which  has  the  most  proof. 
That  is  the  only  sane  method  for  any  sane  man  to  follow. 
If  there  are,  therefore,  two  theories,  one  of  which  has  a  good 
deal  of  proof  and  the  other  has  none,  then  the  one  that  has  a 
good  deal  of  proof,  the  one  that  has  the  most  probability  in 
its  favor,  is  the  one  to  adopt.  Take  that,  and  hold  it  till  it 
be  proved  to  be  untrue. 

But  we  need  here  to  say  a  word  concerning  the  duty  of  the 
conservative  and  of  the  radical  mind.  I  wish  to  defend  the 
conservative  and  to  attack  it,  to  defend  the  radical  and  to 
attack  it,  all  in  a  breath.  The  duty  of  both  should  be  sim- 
ply to  find  God's  truth.  A  man  has  no  right  to  cling  to  a 
thing  just  because  he  has  become  accustomed  to  it  and 
learned  to  love  it.  And  the  man  who  has  found  something 
new  has  no  right  to  go  to  the  man  who  is  clinging  to  the  old, 
and  tear  it  away  and  force  his  new  thought  upon  him,  because 
he  happens  to  like  the  new  better  than  the  old.  The  duty  of 
both  should  be  a  reverent  search  for  the  truth.  Test  the  old, 
but  test  also  the  new.  Challenge  any  new  thought,  and  do 
not  admit  it  as  right  into  the  ranks  of  established  conviction 
till  it  has  proved  its  case.  But  give  it  an  opportunity  to 
prove  it.  Treat  it  not  as  an  enemy,  but  as  though  it  might 
be  a  friend.  Treat  it  as  though  it  might  be  a  messenger  from 
above,  with  new  light  for  the  guidance  of  men.  Hold  to 
that  which  has  been  proved  to  be  good  in  the  past.  Remem- 
ber that  this  is  an  infinite  universe,  that  nobody  has  fath- 
omed it  as  yet,  and  that  it  is  absurd  for  us  to  suppose  that 
there  are  no  improvements  to  be  made  in  our  religious  think- 
ing, feeling,  and  conduct.  Remember  that  the  very  dearest 


Religion  and   Theology  39 

of  all  our  hopes  is  that  we  are  to  make  progress  day  by  day, 
coming  ever  nearer  and  nearer  to  God,  nearer  and  nearer  to 
the  high  and  complete  ideal  of  humanity  and  life.  And  this 
can  only  come  through  clearer  thinking,  through  nobler  feel- 
ing, and  through  more  earnest  action.  Conservatism  and 
radicalism,  then,  instead  of  fighting  each  other,  should  join 
hands,  and  fight  for  the  discovery  of  God's  truth. 

One  more  thought  concerning  the  relation  of  theory  to 
practice.  Remember  that  it  is  clear-headed  theological 
thinking  that  has  laid  out  the  new  roadway  for  human  prog- 
ress through  the  wilderness,  that  has  built  all  the  road,  that 
has  constructed  and  laid  every  rail  of  the  track;  that  it  is 
clear-thoughted  theory  that  has  invented  and  built  the  en- 
gine and  every  car  in  the  train  ;  that  it  is  clear-headed 
theorizing  that  takes  charge  of  the  engine  as  engineer,  one 
who  knows  the  theory  of  the  road  and  of  the  train  and  how 
it  is  to  be  run.  It  is  theology  which  is  the  head-light  on  the 
locomotive  that  shines  out  in  the  darkness,  reveals  the  track, 
tells  when  there  is  any  obstruction  in  the  way,  and  when 
it  is  open  and  safe  to  follow.  But  all  this  were  not  enough, 
even  though  the  theology  were  perfect;  for  it  does  not  create 
the  religious  life.  There  must  be  emotion,  the  steam  in  the 
boiler,  the  heart  of  fire,  the  enthusiasm  of  humanity,  the 
love  for  God,  the  desire  to  help  our  fellow-men.  There 
must  be  all  this, —  the  steam  power,  the  propulsive  force, — 
or  else  the  theory  is  worse  than  nothing.  If  you  have  the 
grandest  love  for  humanity  in  your  heart,  if  you  have  this 
religious  force  mighty  as  a  whirlwind,  yet  if  the  roadway  be 
not  made  safe  at  every  point,  if  the  engine  be  not  built 
according  to  the  eternal  laws  of  God,  then  all  your  propul- 
sive power  simply  means  wreck  and  ruin.  You  need  theol- 
ogy, clear  thought,  and  knowledge  of  the  way  first,  then  the 
power  to  move  men  along  that  way  into  ever  better  and 
better  fields  of  thought  and  human  endeavor. 


THE  SCRIPTURES. 


THE  whole  system  of  belief  which  constitutes  the  popular 
theology  of  the  churches  to-day  springs  out  of  a  certain 
theory  concerning  the  Scriptures  and  a  certain  method  of 
their  interpretation.  The  next  step,  then,  for  us  to  take,  in 
the  work  of  religious  reconstruction,  is  to  consider  these 
Scriptures  in  the  light  of  modern  knowledge,  and  determine 
for  ourselves  whether  the  theory  concerning  them  is  justified 
and  whether  the  scheme  of  theology  which  has  been  derived 
from  them  has  a  basis  in  the  reality  of  things. 

Before  proceeding  to  do  that,  however,  I  wish  to  say  a 
word  concerning  the  men  and  the  times  that  gave  birth  to 
our  popular  system  of  theology.  However  we  may  differ 
from  them  to-day,  we  ought  at  any  rate  to  estimate  them 
correctly,  to  understand  the  grandeur  of  their  character  and 
the  earnest,  noble  aim  which  animated  them. 

There  are  two  ways  by  which  we  may  estimate  any  work 
that  has  been  achieved.  We  may  consider  it  in  relation  to 
its  ability  to  meet  the  ends  to-day  for  which  it  has  been 
constructed,  or  we  may  consider  it  in  the  light  of  the  time 
that  gave  it  birth. 

To  illustrate  what  I  mean.  The  steam-engine  of  Watt 
and  Stephenson  would  be  a  very  poor  contrivance  to  meet 
the  wants  of  the  nineteenth  century ;  but  yet  we  rightly 
honor  these  men  for  what  they  did,  even  lifting  them  to  a 
loftier  pedestal  of  fame  than  we  accord  to  their  successors 


TJic  Scriptures 

who  have  carried  on  the  work  which  they  invented  to  its 
present  degree  of  perfection.  So  the  men  whose  earnest 
brain  and  flaming  hearts  and  noble  aspirations  wrought  this 
theology,  though  we  may  differ  from  them  now,  are  worthy 
of  honor.  They  were,  indeed,  the  rationalists  of  their  time. 
They  had  got  out  of  what  they  regarded,  and  what  we  regard, 
as  a  lower  type  of  religious  life.  They  stood  then  for  the 
most  radical  reform.  They  took  the  next  step  which  led  the 
human  race  to  where  we  are  at  the  present  time.  They  be- 
lieved that  they  were  dealing  with  the  actual  facts  of  God's 
universe,  and  of  human  nature.  They  believed  that  they 
touched  realities,  and  that  they  were  moulding  and  shaping 
human  life  into  accordance  with  the  divine  and  eternal  truth 
of  things.  And  it  was  easy  enough  for  them  to  hold  those 
opinions  then.  We  declare  to-day  that  those  views  are 
irrational,  that  there  is  no  reason  for  their  existence,  that 
they  do  not  accord  with  the  facts,  that  they  are  antiquated 
in  the  light  of  present  knowledge.  But,  in  estimating  the 
men  and  their  work,  we  need  to  remember  how  very  modern 
our  knowledge  is,  how  recently  we  have  come  into  posses- 
sion of  what  we  regard  as  a  more  nearly  accurate  theory  of 
the  universe,  how  recently  we  have  learned  to  look  at  God 
as  we  do  to-day,  how  recent  is  all  this  new  thought,  this 
flood  of  light  in  which  we  gain  a  new  conception  of  human 
nature.  The  popular  theory  of  the  universe  to-day,  the  Co- 
pernican  theory,  the  one  that  we  believe  to  be  substantially 
accurate,  was  not  accepted  by  the  majority  of  even  learned 
men  until  so  modern  a  time  as  may  be  indicated  by  the  date 
of  the  foundation  of  our  own  city.  Only  two  or  three  hun- 
dred years  ago  did  men  begin  to  live  in  what  is  our  modern 
world ;  and  conceptions  of  God,  of  man,  of  God's  dealings 
with  man,  which  we  lightly  regard  as  unreasonable  to-day, 
may  have  looked  to  those  men  as  the  perfection  of  divine 


42  Religious  Reconstruction 

reason.  Greece  had  taken  a  few  faltering  steps  towards  the 
development  of  a  scientific  conception  of  the  world ;  but, 
when  Christianity  was  born  out  of  the  brain  and  heart  of 
Judaism,  it  brought  with  it,  as  an  inheritance,  which  was  un- 
questioningly  accepted,  the  old  Scriptures,  as  being  an  in- 
spired transcript  of  the  divine  mind.  And  these  Scriptures 
taught  a  theory  of  the  world,  of  its  origin,  of  its  construc- 
tion, which  the  Church  unquestioningly  accepted,  as  they 
believed  on  the  divine  authority  itself.  It  followed,  then,  as 
a  logical  necessity,  that  whatever  steps  science  had  already 
taken  became  useless.  They  felt,  concerning  this  outer 
knowledge,  very  much  as  the  old  Mohammedan  caliph  did 
concerning  the  wisdom  stored  up  in  the  library  at  Alexan- 
dria, when  he  was  giving  his  order  to  have  it  burned.  It  is 
reported  that  he  said :  If  the  teachings  of  these  books  agree 
with  the  Koran,  then  we  do  not  need  them.  If  they  do  not 
accord  with  the  Koran,  then  they  are  pernicious  and  wrong, 
and  ought  to  be  destroyed.  So  the  early  Church  felt  that, 
if  scientific  speculation  agreed  with  the  Bible,  they  did  not 
need  it ;  for  they  had  the  Bible  already.  If  it  differed  from 
the  Bible,  it  must  of  necessity  be  wrong.  And  this  they  de- 
cided in  the  light  of  the  best  reason  that  they  had  at  the, 
time,  for  they  accepted  the  Bible  as  the  infallible  word  of 
God;  and  this  was,  therefore,  a  perfectly  rational  thing  for 
them  to  do  and  say.  We  need  to  remember  these  things,  in 
order  that  we  may  hold  these  great  fathers  of  the  Church, 
these  early  leaders  of  theology,  in  something  like  a  true  esti- 
mation. If  we  are  as  faithful  to  the  light  of  our  time,  as 
earnest,  as  devoted  as  they,  then  we  need  not  blush  in  their 
presence  and  they  need  not  blush  in  ours. 

With  so  much  of  preliminary  concerning  these  men,  the 
times  in  which  they  worked,  and  the  results  which  they 
achieved,  we  will  turn  to  the  Scriptures,  which,  as  I  have 


T/ic  Scriptures  43 

said,  are  the  warrant  which  is  offered  us  for  the  truth  of  the 
teachings  which  constituted  the  popular  system  of  theology. 
Those  doctrines  spring  out  of  a  certain  theory  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  a  certain  method  of  interpretation. 

But,  before  we  begin  this  discussion,  let  me  say  one  ear- 
nest word.  Let  no  man  who  hears  me  dare  to  say  that  I 
utter  one  single  syllable  against  the  Bible.  I  am  seeking,  as 
all  men  ought  to  seek,  the  simple  truth  concerning  the  Bible. 
I  criticise  the  theory,  I  discuss  the  method,  what  men 
have  said  about  the  Bible,  what  'men  have  claimed  concern- 
ing the  system  of  truth  which  they  have  deduced  from  the 
Bible.  These  are  the  themes  of  my  discussion;  and  I  can- 
not understand  how  any  man  in  the  older  churches  or  the 
new  should  desire  anything  except  the  simple  truth.  Why 
should  a  man  desire  to  be  deceived  concerning  this  marvel- 
lous universe  ?  Why  should  a  man  desire  to  cling  to  opin- 
ions concerning  his  own  nature  which  are  false?  Why 
should  a  man  wish  to  hold  inaccurate  views  concerning  the 
relation  in  which  he  stands  to  God  ?  Why  should  a  man  be 
willing  to  be  travelling  the  wrong  road  instead  of  desiring  to 
find  the  right  one  ?  I  say  frankly,  I  consider  it  my  first  duty 
to  hold  my  mind  as  free  and  open  as  I  am  able  to,  unbiassed, 
desiring  only  the  truth.  If  a  man  proved  me  wrong,  I  would 
thank  him  as  one  God-sent  to  lead  me  into  a  better  way. 
In  this  spirit,  all  of  us  ought  to  consider  these  great  prob- 
lems concerning  human  nature  and  human  destiny. 

A  theory  of  the  Scriptures,  a  method  of  interpreting  them, 
—  these  are  the  bases  of  the  popular  theology.  First,  I 
shall  speak  of  the  method  of  interpreting  the  Bible.  It  is 
treated  as  one  book  from  beginning  to  end;  and,  on  that 
theory,  the  method  of  interpretation  seems  to  me  unim peach- 
ably  correct.  Two  principles  I  need  to  notice.  In  trying  to 
find  out  what  the  Bible  teaches,  very  naturally  the  slightest 


44  Religious  Reconstruction 

hint,  the  faintest  voice  of  utterance,  counts   as  against  no 
matter  how  impressive  and  prolonged  a  silence. 

Suppose  there  is  a  whole  book,  suppose  there  are  a  dozen 
books,  in  the  Bible,  that  have  nothing  whatever  to  say  con- 
cerning any  one  of  the  great  doctrines  of  theology;  and  sup- 
pose there  is  half  a  line  in  some  one  of  the  books  that  gives 
some  clear  and  explicit  statement  concerning  one  of  these 
doctrines.  Of  course  the  silence  counts  for  nothing.  It  is 
the  faint  voice  or  the  distinct  and  definite  utterance  that 
shall  be  heard.  For  as  Prof.  Stuart,  of  Andover,  one  of 
the  giants  of  modern  theology,  used  to  say,  "  One  text  is  as 
good  as  a  hundred."  If  you  feel  sure  that  God  has  said 
something  definitely,  though  it  be  only  half  a  line,  the  fact 
that  he  has  not  said  it  through  whole  tracts  of  the  Bible  is 
not  to  count  against  that  feeblest  and  faintest  utterance. 
The  other  principle  of  interpretation  is  that,  where  there  are 
seemingly  contradictory  statements,  that  which  is  less  ex- 
plicit and  definite  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  that 
which  is  clear  and  more  explicit. 

As  an  illustration  of  what  I  mean,  suppose  the  doctrine  of 
the  fall  of  man  appears  in  some  parts  of  the  Bible  to  be  con- 
tradicted, or  suppose  the  doctrine  of  eternal  punishment- 
appears  to  be  contradicted,  as  it  certainly  is  in  certain  state- 
ments of  Paul, —  for  in  many  places  he  seems  to  teach  uni- 
versal salvation, —  what  is  to  be  done  in  settling  as  to  the 
real  teachings  of  the  Scriptures?  If  there  be  one  explicit, 
definite  statement  to  the  effect  that  the  doctrine  of  eternal 
punishment  is  true,  a  statement  that  can  bear  no  other  inter- 
pretation, that  seems  to  be  a  perfectly  clear  and  definite 
statement  in  that  direction,  the  apparent  contradictions  of 
it  are  to  be  explained  away,  interpreted  after  some  other 
fashion. 

I  wish  now,  as  illustrating  this  and  to  show  what  doctrines 


The  Scriptures  45 

have  been  deduced  from  the  teachings  of  the  Bible,  to  point 
out  the  bearing  of  this  method  of  interpretation  concerning 
two  or  three  of  these  doctrines.  Take  the  doctrine  of  the 
fall  of  man.  That  is  clearly  and  definitely  taught  in  the  very 
opening  book  of  the  Bible.  It  is  true  that  Jesus  has  nothing 
to  say  about  it.  He  does  not  mention  the  fall  or  the  signifi- 
cance of  it.  It  seems  very  strange,  on  this  supposition  of 
the  old  theology,  that  Jesus,  who  is  the  second  person  in  the 
Trinity,  who  is  God  himself,  who  has  come  into  this  fallen 
and  lost  world  on  purpose  to  save  it,  does  not  mention  the 
fall.  You  would  expect  him  most  certainly  to  give  some 
clear  and  definite  statement  of  the  condition  of  men,  and 
how  they  came  into  this  condition,  and  why  it  was  necessary 
for  him  to  come  to  this  earth  to  save  them.  You  would 
think  that  he  would  have  at  least  alluded  to  so  important  a 
matter.  Yet  he  says  nothing  about  it.  But,  on  the  theory 
that  has  been  held  as  to  the  nature  of  the  Scriptures  and  the 
method  of  their  interpretation,  this  objection  fades  utterly 
away.  For,  since  every  particle  of  this  Bible  is  infallibly 
inspired  from  beginning  to  end,  the  silence  of  Jesus  is  to 
count  for  nothing  as  against  the  explicit  statement  of  the 
first  book  of  the  Bible ;  and  we  must  believe  that,  since  God 
is  the  speaker  and  the  writers  are  only  his  various  mouth- 
pieces, the  utterance  of  any  one  of  them  is  just  as  much 
the  word  of  God  as  the  utterance  of  any  other.  So  the  Book 
of  Genesis,  though  its  author  is  unknown,  or  the  statement 
of  Paul  must  be  regarded  as  the  words  of  God  equally  with 
the  words  which  Jesus  himself  uttered. 

So  concerning  the  doctrine  of  the  total  depravity  of  man. 
Jesus  has  said  nothing  about  it,  a  large  number  of  the 
writers  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  of  the  New  have 
said  nothing  about  it ;  and  yet  there  are  certain  texts  which 
seem  to  teach  it  with  the  utmost  clearness,  and  these  texts 


46  Religions  Reconstruction 

are  rightly,  on  this  theory  of  the  Scriptures,  made  the  basis 
for  this  doctrine.  If  we  hold  this  theory  of  the  Scriptures, 
we  cannot  escape  this  conviction. 

Again,  concerning  the  atonement,  the  incarnation,  the  suf- 
ferings and  the  death  of  Jesus  as  the  necessary  means  of 
appeasing  the  wrath  of  God,  satisfying  the  divine  justice, 
and  making  it  possible  to  forgive  those  who  repent  and  for- 
sake their  sins, —  Jesus  does  not  teach  this.  But  it  is  taught 
with  a  great  deal  of  clearness  in  certain  parts  of  the  New 
Testament.  And  these  direct  and  explicit  teachings,  on 
that  theory  of  the  Scriptures,  must  be  held;  and  this  doc- 
trine is  rightly  deduced  from  these  passages  of  the  New 
Testament.  And  so  concerning  the  destiny  of  the  lost. 
Jesus  does  appear  very  plainly  in  some  passages  to  teach 
this.  At  least,  it  requires  a  good  deal  of  interpretation  to 
take  away  the  force  of  the  passages  in  which  he  is  supposed 
to  have  taught  it.  And,  since  that  is  so,  any  teaching  of  uni- 
versal salvation  which  may  be  found  in  some  other  passages 
of  the  Bible  is  to  go  for  nothing.  They  must  have  meant 
something  else,  for  both  doctrines  cannot  be  true ;  and,  since 
the  one  is  clearly  and  explicitly  taught,  the  other  passages 
must  have  meant  something  consistent  with  this  teaching. 
I  speak  of  this  as  illustrating  the  method  of  the  theologians 
in  their  interpretation  of  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures;  and 
I  must  say  in  their  justification  that  the  method  seems  to  me 
the  method  that  any  clear-headed  and  earnest  man  would 
apply  to  the  interpretation  of  any  document  whatsoever. 

Now,  then,  we  will  pass  to  consider  the  theory  which  they 
held  of  the  Scriptures  themselves ;  for  the  theological  doc- 
trines must  stand  or  fall  by  the  truth  of  that  theory.  If  the 
Scriptures  are  what  has  been  claimed  for  them,  if  they  are 
the  infallible  word  of  God  from  beginning  to  end,  then  we 
must  put  away  all  other  sources  of  knowledge,  and  follow  the 


The  Scriptures  47 

direct  teaching  of  this  one  book.  Those  men  are  logical 
who  to-day  say  concerning  the  speculations  or  definite  dem- 
onstrations of  science,  "  There  must  be  something  wrong 
about  them,  for  here  is  the  word  of  God ;  and  God  himself 
certainly  could  not  have  been  mistaken  concerning  his  own 
universe."  Let  us  then  candidly,  earnestly,  for  a  little  while 
consider  these  Scriptures,  and  see  what  we  must  think  about 
them. 

In  the  first  place,  the  question  comes  up  as  a  very  impor- 
tant one  as  to  whether  they  are  to  be  treated  as  one  book. 
Here  are  sixty-six  short  treatises,  making  up  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New,  written  by  different  men  during  a  period 
of  at  least  a  thousand  years, —  written  in  different  countries, 
under  different  circumstances.  Some  of  them  are  history, 
some  laws,  some  letters  written  to  a  church  or  to  a  personal 
friend ;  some  are  prophecies,  some  psalms,  some  philosophi- 
cal treatises.  Is  there  any  reason  why  we  should  consider 
all  these  various  treatises  as  constituting  one  book?  Of 
course,  I  must  treat  the  points  that  I  bring  up  with  a  great 
deal  of  brevity ;  and  for  further  consideration  and  for  much 
of  the  proof  of  what  I  shall  allege  I  shall  be  obliged  to  refer 
you  to  larger  treatises  that  cover  these  themes.  I  can  only 
give  you  results.  I  must  frankly  tell  you,  liowevert  that  I 
clo  not  know  of  any  reason  whatever  why  we  should  consider 
this  one  book  at  all,  except  that  it  has  come  to  be  found 
within  the  same  covers.  There  is  no  proof,  so  far  as  I  am 
aware,  to  be  found  in  all  the  ages  why  we  should  not  treat 
thi«  simply  as  a  body  of  religious  literature,  a  library  instead 
of  a  volume. 

When  we  raise  the  question  as  to  who  wrote  the  books,  we 
must  answer  that  we  do  not  know  the  authorship  of  more 
than  a  few  with  anything  like  ceitainty.  If  you  ask  me  when 
they  were  written,  concerning  the  most  of  them  I  must  say 


48  Religious  Reconstruction 

again,  nobody  knows.  If  you  ask  where  they  were  written, 
we  do  not  know,  except  in  the  case  of  a  very  few. 

Suppose,  now,  that  the  author  of  one  of  these  books 
claims  to  be  infallible.  I  must  say  to  you  frankly  that  I  do 
not  recall  a  single  place  where  any  one  of  them  does  make 
such  a  claim.  The  claim  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  is 
not  one  put  forth  by  the  writers  themselves,  but  one  that  has 
grown  up  in  the  course  of  centuries  and  become  a  tradition. 
We  cannot  offer  for  it  anything  in  the  nature  of  logical  or 
substantial  evidence  that  any  rational  man  need  accept  to- 
day. But  suppose  some  one  of  the  writers  should  make  this 
claim  on  his  own  behalf,  what  should  we  think  of  him? 
What  should  we  think  of  a  man  who  should  make  such  a 
claim  to-day  ?  Do  you  not  know  perfectly  well  that,  if  there 
should  appear  in  Boston,  in  this  nineteenth  century,  a  man 
who  claimed  to  be  the  infallible  mouth-piece  of  God,  we 
should  simply  treat  him  kindly  as  a  visionary,  or  perhaps 
put  him  under  treatment  for  insanity  ?  Nobody  would  think 
of  accepting  such  a  claim.  Why,  then,  should  we  accept  it 
concerning  a  man  whose  name  we  do  not  know,  of  whose 
country  we  are  ignorant,  who  lived,  nobody  knows  just  when, 
hundreds  or  thousands  of  years  ago  ?  Is  there  any  rational 
ground  for  accepting  such  a  claim  ?  If  there  is,  I  have 
never,  in  many  years  of  careful  study,  been  able  to  find  it. 
But  suppose  one  of  these  men  should  make  the  claim  for 
himself,  would  that  hold  good  for  the  rest?  Suppose  the 
author  of  John  should  claim  that  he  was  infallibly  inspired : 
would  that  cover  the  inspiration  of  Luke  and  Matthew,  or 
the  author  of  one  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  ?  I  do 
not  see  why,  since  we  have  concluded  that  this  is  a  literature, 
not  one  book.  If  we  discover  the  authorship  of  one  book, 
that  applies  to  him  and  him  alone. 

But  suppose  we  felt  sure  that  all  the  books  constituting 


The  Scriptures  49 

the  present  Bible  were  infallibly  inspired  in  the  beginning : 
are  we  at  all  certain  that  we  have  those  books  precisely  as 
they  were  first  written  ?  Consider  a  moment,  and  see.  The 
oldest  manuscript  we  have  of  any  part  of  the  Bible  takes  us 
back  only  to  the  fourth  century.  Then  we  have  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  manuscripts, — some  of  the  Old  Testament, 
some  of  the  New  Testament,  some  of  whole  books,  some  of 
parts  of  books;  and  in  these  manuscripts  we  find  hundreds  — 
yes,  thousands  —  of  various  readings.  They  are  not  all  alike. 
The  differences  in  these  readings  are,  in  the  main,  small,  I 
grant  you ;  but  sometimes  they  extend  to  half  a  chapter  or  to 
whole  verses,  so  that  these  differences  are,  after  all,  con- 
siderable. It  is  frequently  offered  as  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  this  objection  that  great  care  was  taken  in  copying  the 
Scriptures ;  and  they  were  probably  as  correctly  transmitted 
as  were  the  writings  of  Cicero.  Probably  more  care  was 
taken  in  copying  the  Bible  than  in  copying  the  writings  of 
the  great  Roman  orator;  but  we  have  a  right,  concerning 
a  book  that  claims  to  give  us  the  infallible  mind  of  the 
Almighty,  to  be  more  critical  and  careful  as  to  the  accuracy 
of  the  writing  than  we  are  concerning  a  merely  secular 
writer  of  philosophy  or  a  deliverer  of  orations.  If  any  man 
should  come  to  us  with  the  claim  that  the  destiny  of  the 
human  race  hung  on  the  interpretation  of  a  line  of  Cicero, 
then  we  should  inquire  with  a  little  more  care  as  to  the 
accuracy  of  the  transcript  of  his  orations. 

We  are  not  sure  enough,  then,  of  the  precise  accuracy  of 
any  single  text  in  any  one  of  the  books  of  the  Bible  to  give 
us  warranty  for  asserting  that  the  destiny  of  the  human  race 
hangs  upon  this  verbal  statement. 

And  then  again,  as  we  open  the  Bible  to  examine  it  care- 
fully, what  do  we  find  ?  We  find  that  in  the  early  part  and 
all  the  way  through  it  teaches,  what  we  should  naturally 


5O  Religious  Reconstruction 

expect,  the  most  inaccurate  kind  of  science.  It  reflects  the 
ideas  of  the  people  of  the  time  in  which  it  was  written.  Why 
should  it  not  ?  Only  think  for  one  moment.  Suppose  some 
one  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  either  of  the  Old  Testament 
or  of  the  New,  had  given  us  only  one  hint,  one  clew,  to  the 
Copernican  theory  of  the  universe.  Think  how  incontest- 
ably  it  would  have  established  its  supernatural  origin,  that 
it  was  something  more  than  human  history.  But  we  find 
nothing  of  the  kind.  The  science  of  the  Old  Testament  and 
of  the  New  Testament  is  the  science  of  the  age  which  pro- 
duced the  Bible.  It  is  inaccurate  in  a  hundred  different 
ways.  I  cannot  detail  them  to  you  or  give  you  the  evi- 
dence; but  it  is  beyond  question  that  the  Bible  reflects  the 
scientific  ideas  of  the  times  when  these  books  were  written. 
It  is  precisely  what  we  should  expect  if  it  were  a  human 
production ;  but  it  is  far  from  being  what  we  should  expect 
of  a  Bible  divinely  inspired  and  infallible.  It  is  full  of 
historical  inaccuracies ;  and,  more  important  still,  its  ethical 
teaching  is  anything  but  what  we  can  heartily  accept  and 
indorse  to-day.  The  morality  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the 
morality  of  the  barbarous  age  in  which  it  was  written.  It 
indorsed  polygamy,  it  indorsed  slavery.  It  represents  God 
as  not  only  condoning  falsehood,  but  as  practically  instruct- 
ing one  of  his  prophets  to  tell  a  lie  for  the  purpose  of 
deceiving  and  leading  into  destruction  a  king  that  he  wished 
to  get  out  of  the  way.  It  indorsed  things  too  horrible  to 
be  mentioned  in  public,  not  merely  gave  a  history  of  them, 
but  represented  them  as  the  express  command,  or  permis- 
sion at  any  rate,  of  the  Almighty.  When  we  come  to  the 
New  Testament,  we  liberals  are  accustomed  to  say  that  the 
Old  Testament  ethics,  of  course,  is  behind  the  age ;  but  we 
are  very  careful  and  shy  about  even  hinting  a  criticism  of 
the  New.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  we  must.  We  are  com- 


The  Scriptures  51 

pelled,  if  we  dare  to  express  the  results  of  modern  thought, 
to  utter  our  conviction  that  the  New  Testament  itself  is  far 
from  being  ethically  up  to  the  standard  of  the  best  thought 
and  the  moral  life  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Jesus  teaches 
theories  of  political  economy  which  we  regard  as  unwise, 
and  which  would  result  in  moral  disaster.  Paul  teaches  a 
doctrine  of  morality,  of  the  marriage  relation,  of  woman, 
which  is  simply  an  offence  to  our  noblest  conception  of 
womanhood,  and  which,  if  carried  out,  would  be  a  degrada- 
tion of  the  family  life.  Prof.  Toy,  a  man  who  was  trained 
as  a  Baptist,  and  who  has  never,  I  believe,  been  turned  out 
of  the  Baptist  communion,  one  of  the  foremost  scholars  of 
the  time,  has  told  us  frankly,  in  a  recent  article,  that  the 
ethics  of  the  New  Testament  must  be  admitted  to  be  below 
the  highest  level  of  the  moral  ideals  of  the  present  time. 

Then  the  books  of  the  Bible,  from  beginning  to  end,  tell 
different  stories,  contradict  each  other  in  a  hundred  differ- 
ent ways.  I  am  aware  that  interpreters  have  twisted  and 
turned  them,  and  attempted  to  harmonize  the  different  and 
apparently  contradictory  statements  over  and  over  and  over 
again.  Very  likely,  if  you  should  make  this  statement,  they 
would  say,  That  is  an  old  objection  :  it  has  been  answered 
a  thousand  times.  But  I  should  reply  by  quoting  the  words 
of  a  man  who  seems  to  me  to  have  hit  upon  the  truth  :  "  It 
is  well  for  us  to  keep  in  mind  that  an  objection  is  always 
young  till  it  is  satisfactorily  answered." 

We  cannot  then,  it  seems  to  me,  in  the  light  of  the  science 
of  the  modern  world,  in  the  light  of  the  historical  criticism 
of  the  modern  world,  in  the  light  of  the  study  of  compara- 
tive religions,  in  the  light  that  has  been  thrown  on  the  meth- 
ods by  which  Bibles  come  to  be, — we  cannot  any  longer  hold 
this  old  theory  concerning  the  Scriptures. 

We  are  rationally  permitted  not  only,  but  we  are  rationally 


52  Religious  Reconstruction 

compelled,  to  reconstruct  completely  our  theory  concerning 
these  grand  books ;  for  they  are  grand  when  we  hold  them 
as  they  are,  and  do  not  attempt  to  put  them  into  a  position 
that  their  writers  never  intended  them  to  hold.  I  feel  that, 
in  this  changed  conception  of  the  Bible,  we  are  not  losing 
the  Scriptures  :  we  are  finding  them  for  the  first  time  for  two 
thousand  years.  We  are  being  able  to  take  them  for  what 
they  are.  We  are  able  to  handle  them  rationally,  to  find  out 
what  there  is  in  them,  and  to  apply  them  to  the  daily  uses  of 
our  daily  lives.  I,  for  one,  shall  consider  it  a  great  gain 
when  I  am  able,  in  this  pulpit,  to  read  any  part  of  this  Bible 
and  make  use  of  it  without  the  necessity  of  stopping  to  ex- 
plain that  I  think  this  or  that  about  it,  that  I  do  not  regard 
the  story  of  a  miracle  as  literally  true.  I  should  like  to  be 
able  to  read  the  story  of  Jesus  turning  water  into  wine,  or  the 
raising  of  Lazarus,  or  the  feeding  of  the  multitude  with  the 
five  loaves  and  the  two  fishes,  without  stopping  to  explain  that 
I  do  not  believe  that  this  is  literal  history.  I  should  like  to  be 
able  to  read  it  for  what  it  is, —  the  grand  literature  of  a  grand 
people,  the  biography  of  a  race ;  for  it  is  nothing  more  nor 
less  than  the  religious  biography  of  a  great  nation,  invaluable 
to  us  to-day,  if  we  know  how  to  use  it,  as  teaching  us  how  it 
is  that  religious  ideas  spring  up  and  grow,  and  how  they  are 
transformed,  and  to  what  they  come  as  the  result  of  centuries 
of  progress.  Rabbi  Hirsch,  one  of  the  great  Hebrew  schol- 
ars of  the  country  at  the  present  time,  has  told  us  that  this 
theory  of  the  infallible  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament  is 
something  that  the  Jews  never  thought  of  holding.  They 
believed,  he  says,  that  it  was  the  people  who  were  inspired, — 
the  great  church  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  lived, —  a  people 
God-inspired  and  God-led,  and  that  these  books  were  simply 
the  expression  of  their  opinions  at  the  time.  They  consid- 
ered themselves  under  the  guidance  of  this  living  spirit  of 


TJic  Scriptures  53 

God,  but  perfectly  free  at  any  time  to  modify  or  change. 
Mr.  Baring-Gould,  one  of  the  leading  scholars  of  the  present 
time  in  the  English  Church,  says  the  same  in  relation  to  the 
New  Testament.  He  says  it  is  the  expression  of  the  opinion 
of  the  early  Church.  It  is  the  Church,  in  his  theory,  that  is 
inspired ;  and,  under  the  guidance  of  God,  it  is  competent  to 
outgrow  and  to  modify  and  change  and  leave  behind  any  of 
the  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  substitute  in  their 
place  the  living  truth  of  the  living  God  to-day. 

I  wish  now  to  note  a  few  of  the  advantages  that  accrue  to 
us  as  the  result  of  giving  up  the  old  and  accepting  this  new 
theory  of  the  Scriptures. 

In  the  first  place,  we  are  relieved  from  an  enormous  re- 
sponsibility. If  we  accept  and  continue  to  hold  the  old  the- 
ory, then  we  must  be  perpetually  apologizing  for  God.  We 
must  be  always  trying  to  explain  how  it  was  that  he  did  not 
teach  the  truth  concerning  the  origin  and  creation  of  the 
world.  We  must  try  to  explain  why  he  made  such  impossi- 
ble statements  concerning  the  exodus  of  the  Israelites,  for 
instance.  We  are  taught  that  a  nation  of  about  three  mill- 
ion souls,  with  the  old  and  the  young,  the  sick  and  the  well, 
with  all  their  household  furniture,  their  cattle,  their  flocks, 
with  everything  which  they  possessed  —  that  is,  as  many  peo- 
ple as  lived  in  the  whole  of  this  country  at  the  time  of  the 
Revolution  —  were  able  to  go  out  in  a  body,  and  leave  the 
land  of  Goshen,  in  one  night.  If  we  hold  that  theory,  we 
must  try  to  explain  how  the  infallible  spirit  of  God  could 
ever  have  made  such  a  statement.  We  must  try  to  explain 
how  it  happened  that  God  in  those  old  times  should  have  in- 
dorsed such  immoralities  as  shock  and  revolt  the  hearts  of 
men  at  the  present  time.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  an  immense 
gain  to  be  able  to  treat  this  grand  old  book  as  just  what  it 
is,  to  treat  it  as  the  outcome  of  the  heart  and  the  thought 


54  Religious  Reconstruction 

and  the  life  of  its  age ;  to  note  how,  as  the  world  becomes 
more  civilized,  the  level  of  thought,  the  level  of  its  moral 
teaching,  rises  and  rises,  becoming  higher  and  higher;  how 
the  light  seems  to  increase  toward  the  dawn  of  a  better  day 
that  we  trust  is  now  before  us. 

Then  there  is  one  other  advantage.  We  gain  something 
in  this  theory  that  seems  to  me  grander  than  the  Bible  itself. 
We  gain  the  conviction  that  this  race  of  ours  is  made  up  of 
the  kind  of  beings  that  make  Bibles.  Think  of  the  changed 
conception  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  man !  Instead  of  look- 
ing upon  him  as  abject  and  utterly  lost,  lying  prostrate  and 
helpless,  with  no  power  to  lift  himself  out  of  that  position, 
think  of  this  marvellous  race  of  ours  blossoming  and  bearing 
truit  like  this  out  of  its  own  brain  and  heart  and  spiritual 
life.  It  is  grander  than  the  Bible  to  think  that  man  can 
make  Bibles.  Grander  than  any  picture  is  the  artist  who  is 
able  to  paint  the  picture. 

Then  we  begin  to  sympathize  with  the  other  nations  of  the 
world,  these  other  Bible-makers  of  every  land  and  of  every 
age.  We  are  not  compelled  to  think  of  them  as  having  been 
forgotten  of  God,  left  outside  the  pale  of  his  mercy  and  care, 
blundering,  stupid,  walking  and  falling  into  the  ditch  or  into- 
difficulties  of  every  kind,  only  at  last  to  take  the  final  leap 
over  the  precipice  into  endless  ruin.  Instead  of  that,  we  see 
them  also  lifting  up  brain  and  heart,  under  the  impulse  of 
this  spiritual  aspiration,  and  blossoming  out  into  these  mar- 
vels,—  these  literatures,  these  books  consecrated  as  the 
Bibles  of  the  world. 

We  have  one  more  grand  gain.  These  old  Bible  writers, 
Paul,  the  authors  of  the  Gospels,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  the 
singers  of  those  wondrous  Psalms, —  these  come  back  to  us, 
no  longer  mere  instruments  that  some  inexplicable  power 
used  with  which  to  write,  hut  men,  our  brothers,  kindred 


ERSITY 

•S£CAUFO££> 

The  Scriptures  55 

souls,  whom  we  can  love  to  associate  with,  whose  words  we 
love  to  listen  to,  as  being  human,  loving,  tender  words  of 
wisdom,  words  that  touch  us  more  deeply  because  they  are 
not  infallible.  We  feel  their  own  hearts  beat.  We  come 
into  sympathy  with  the  throbbing  of  their  questioning  brains. 
We  see  them  looking  out  over  this  universe,  and  wondering 
over  the  same  problems  that  we  are  still  trying  to  solve ; 
and  we  take  hold  of  their  hands,  and  feel  the  kinship  and 
brotherhood.  And  they  become  masters,  teachers  of  those 
of  us  who  are  humble  enough  to  accept  their  mighty  sugges- 
tions of  truth ;  for,  when  some  man,  no  matter  if  he  be  not 
infallible,  who  is  intellectually  so  much  taller  than  I  am  that 
it  seems  reasonable  that  his  outlook  over  the  world  must  be 
wider  and  of  grander  sweep,  tells  me  that  he  sees  something 
beyond  my  ken,  it  is  at  least  rational  for  me  to  say  that  per- 
haps he  does,  and  to  be  comforted,  to  be  lifted  up,  to  be 
inspired,  by  the  thought  that  the  grand  vision  which  he  says 
he  sees  may  be  true.  When  I  am  hidden  in  some  low 
valley  before  the  sun  rises,  and  I  catch  the  first  faint  gleam 
of  light  kindling  a  far-off  summit,  though  I  cannot  see  the 
sun,  I  know  there  is  a  sun ;  and  I  know  that  it  is  rising,  for 
there  is  the  reflection  of  its  presence.  So,  when  some  of 
these  mountain  souls  are  kindled  with  light,  with  suggestions 
of  sunrise,  while  still  invisible  to  me,  it  is  rational  for  me  to 
believe  that  that  may  be  a  shining  from  that  country  where 
the  sun  never  goes  down ;  and  comfort  and  cheer  and  new 
courage  may  come  into  my  heart. 

And  when  we  stand  in  this  hopeful  position,  with  all  the 
Bibles  of  all  the  world  before  us,  with  all  their  grand  writers, 
teachers,  witnesses,  as  our  brothers  and  friends,  able  to  use 
all  these  and  rejoice  in  them,  we  stand  free  to  listen  to 
the  latest  living  utterance  of  the  living  God,  in  the  sure  con- 
fidence that  the  source  of  truth  is  not  exhausted,  that  there 


56  Religious  Reconstruction 

is  more  light,  as  the  old  Pilgrim  preacher,  John  Robinson, 
said,  still  to  break  out  of  God's  holy  word,  more  light  to 
break  out  of  his  holy  earth,  more  light  to  break  out  of  his 
holy  heavens,  more  light  to  break  out  of  these  consecrated 
human  brains,  more  light  to  burst  forth  from  these  noble 
human  hearts.  And  we  stand  free  to  listen  and  look  and 
accept,  and  to  take  God's  hand  and  let  him  lead  us  into  ever 
new  and  better  ways. 


COSMOLOGY  AND  THEOLOGY. 


IN  the  opening  sermon  of  this  series,  I  referred  to  two  or 
three  very  important  revolutions  in  modern  thought  through 
which  the  world  is  passing  to-day ;  and  I  told  you  at  that 
time  that  I  should  have  occasion  later  on  in  this  course  to 
speak  of  some  of  these  with  more  definiteness  and  particu- 
larity. The  time  for  reviewing  at  least  one  of  these  great 
revolutions  of  thought  has  arrived  this  morning.  I  propose, 
therefore,  to  discuss  with  you  the  relation  which  exists  be- 
tween our  theories  of  the  universe  and  our  theological  beliefs. 
I  have  three  main  points  which  I  wish  to  make,  three 
objects  in  view. 

In  the  first  place,  I  wish  to  point  out  to  you  how  intimate, 
how  vital,  is  the  relation  between  cosmology,  or  the  theory 
of  the  world,  and  theology  ;  to  show  that  theology  roots  itself 
in,  springs  out  of,  is  adapted  to,  takes  the  shape  of,  the 
theory  of  the  world  which  we  happen  to  hold  ;  to  show  that 
the  two  inevitably  go  together ;  and  to  intimate  to  you  that, 
if  there  ever  comes  a  radical  change  in  our  theory  of  the 
world,  there  must  of  necessity  come  a  like  radical  change  in 
our  theological  beliefs. 

Second,  I  wish  to  show  you  that  the  popular  theology,  the 
theology  of  the  last  thousand  or  fifteen  hundred  years,  has 
sprung  out  of  and  is  vitally  related  to  the  old  cosmology,  the 
old  theory  of  the  universe. 

Third,  I  wish  to  indicate  to  you  the  profound,  sweeping, 


58  Religious  Reconstruction 

radical  change  that  is  passing  over  the  thought  of  men  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  the  universe,  'and  to  hint  to  you  that 
this  change  is  so  radical,  so  profound,  so  far-reaching,  that 
it  will  be  found  a  simple  impossibility  for  the  old  theology 
to  continue  permanently  to  live  in  the  new  universe.  These 
are  the  three  points  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  earnest 
attention  this  morning. 

At  the  outset,  however,  I  wish  to  raise  a  question  which 
has  been  put  to  me  a  good  many  times,  and  which  is  a  per- 
fectly natural  and  legitimate  question,  and  the  answer  to 
which  ought  to  throw  a  great  deal  of  light  on  our  thinking, 
as  to  why  this  great  change  in  theological  thought  should 
come  just  now  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Why  did  it  not 
come  five  hundred  years  ago  ?  Why  did  it  not  wait  for  five 
hundred  years  from  this  time  ?  Why  are  we  in  the  midst  of 
these  great  changes,  transitions,  discussions,  concerning  the 
fundamental  problems  of  the  universe,  of  God,  of  man,  and 
of  destiny  ?  Why  is  this  great  unrest  upon  this  particular 
generation  ? 

And, —  another  question, —  if  the  change  is  coining  at  all, 
why  does  it  not  come  more  rapidly  ?  Why  does  not  every- 
body accept  the  results  of  these  new  ideas  at  once  ? 

The  answer  to  the  first  question,  as  to  why  just  now  this 
change  is  coming  over  the  world,  will  lead  me  a  long  way, 
in  consideration  of  the  nature  of  human  thought  concerning 
the  world  in  which  we  live.  Suppose,  for  example,  that  man 
has  inhabited  this  planet  two  hundred  thousand  years ;  and 
that  is  an  estimate  which  is  a  very  rational  one,  in  the  light 
of  modern  science  and  of  our  knowledge  of  its  origin  and 
development.  Up  to  within  four  hundred  years, —  four  hun- 
dred compared  with  two  hundred  thousand, —  substantially 
the  same  ideas  have  been  held  by  all  men,  in  all  nations, 
under  the  teachings  of  all  religions,  everywhere,  concerning 


Cosmology  and  TJteology  59 

the  nature  of  the  universe  and  of  the  relations  of  God  to  it. 
Up  to  within  four  hundred  years,  I  repeat,  substantially  the 
same  fundamental  principles  have  ruled  human  thought  in 
this  regard.  In  ancient  Greece,  a  few  promising  steps  were 
taken  towards  a  rational  scientific  conception  of  the  world. 
But  Plato,  by  the  weight  of  his  great  name  as  a  philosophi- 
cal thinker,  turned  the  philosophical  world  into  ideal  chan- 
nels and  away  from  the  scientific  conception  of  the  nature 
of  things.  Then  speedily  came  Christianity,  accepting  the 
old  Hebrew  theories  of  the  world  as  divinely  revealed  to 
man ;  and  it  became  from  that  time  forth  a  sin  to  raise  any 
question  concerning  the  nature  of  things.  It  is  only  within 
a,  few,  say  four  or  five  hundred  years,  that  there  has  beer, 
such  freedom  of  thought  in  the  world,  such  an  accumula- 
tion of  knowledge,  such  an  observation  of  facts,  as  to  en- 
able the  human  mind  even  to  begin  the  formation  of  a 
theory  that  might  claim  for  itself  the  warrant  of  facts.  It 
is,  therefore,  only  within  these  few  hundred  years  that  an 
attempt  has  been  made  in  this  direction.  That  is  the  reason 
why  all  the  burden  of  this  theological  thought  and  change 
comes  upon  this  generation,  upon  us  of  the  modern  world. 

Met*  do  not  accept  these  ideas  any  more  rapidly  for  a 
perfectly  natural  reason.  We  inherit  our  thoughts  in  this 
direction.  Even  the  very  substance  of  our  brain  is  run  in 
certain  moulds,  so  that  it  takes  generations  for  any  wide- 
spread change  in  popular  thought  to  take  place.  Men  see 
new  truth,  and  begin. to  teach  it;  but  it  is  generations  before 
it  is  sifted  down  through  the  different  strata  of  intellectual 
life  until  it  becomes  the  property  of  everybody. 

As  an  illustration  in  this  direction,  where  there  was  much 
less  theological  bitterness  involved  to  act  as  a  hindrance, 
take  the  change  from  the  Ptolemaic  to  the  Copernican  sys- 
tem. It  was  two  or  three  hundred  years  before  the  change 


6o  Religious  Reconstruction 

was  accepted  by  everybody  or  before  people  thought  natu- 
rally in  the  midst  of  the  new  ideas.  Traces  of  the  old  con- 
ception are  still  imbedded  in  our  language,  in  our  modes  of 
expression.  We  still  talk  about  the  sun's  rising  and  setting, 
though  we  know  it  does  nothing  of  the  kind.  Lurking  in 
the  hidden  corners  of  our  brain  are  all  sorts  of  remnants 
still  of  that  old  theory  of  things  that  has  passed  away  from 
the  minds  of  intelligent  men. 

I  wish,  now,  to  give  to  you  some  idea,  as  briefly  as  I  can, 
consistently  with  clearness,  of  the  theory  of  the  world  that 
has  been  held  from  the  beginning  till  this  modern  age,  and 
to  show  you  how  naturally,  how  inevitably,  the  old  theology 
springs  out  of  it.  I  need  not  take  your  time  by  picturing 
the  childish,  the  quaint,  and  sometimes  the  grotesque  ideas 
which  certain  barbaric  people  have  held  as  to  the  origin  of 
things.  If  you  are  curious  in  that  direction,  you  may  find 
them  pointed  out  in  any  work  on  popular  mythology.  I 
shall  begin  with  that  which  was  generally  held  by  the 
Hebrew  people  at  an  early  period  of  their  history. 

It  was  popularly  believed  that  the  tabernacle  which  was 
set  up  in  the  wilderness  was  patterned  after  the  plan  of  the 
universe,  so  that,  by  studying  the  structure  of  the  tabernacle, 
we  can  get  an  idea  of  what  they  thought  about  the  world. 
And  we  know  from  the  writings,  not  only  of  the  Jews  them- 
selves, but  from  the  writings  of  the  early  Christian  geog- 
raphers, very  clearly  and  definitely  what  those  ideas  were. 
They  pictured  the  universe  as  an  oblong  square,  a  kind  of 
three-story  structure.  In  the  middle  was  the  flat  earth,  sur- 
rounded on  all  sides  by  the  ocean.  The  world  of  the  de- 
parted, when  they  began  to  believe  in  such  a  world,  was 
a  sort  of  underground  cavern  —  a  cellar,  as  one  might  say 
—  in  this  universe  house.  Then  overhead,  just  a  little  way 
above  the  stars,  was  heaven,  where  God  sat  on  a  throne, 


Cosmology  and  TJicology  6 1 

surrounded  by  a  court  patterned  after  that  of  an  Oriental 
king,  with  messengers  at  his  right  hand  and  his  left.  And 
from  this  throne  he  looked  down  over  the  world  of  men, 
sending  his  orders  in  this  direction  and  that,  as  a  king 
might  send  a  courier  to  direct  how  this  thing  or  that  should 
be  done  in  carrying  out  his  will.  This  was  the  general  con- 
ception of  the  world.  And  how  very  small  it  was  it  is 
extremely  difficult  for  us  now,  accustomed  as  we  are  to  think 
of  the  Infinite,  even  to  conceive. 

Let  me  give  you  a  hint  of  this  by  looking  at  the  concep- 
tions of  the  universe  that  were  held  by  Dante  and  Milton. 
Then  I  will  say  something  concerning  the  relative  size  of 
that  old  universe  and  the  present  one. 

Dante  lived  in  the  thirteenth  century,  a  little  less  than  six 
hundred  years  ago.  Think  of  that  as  compared  with  the 
immense  time  that  man  has  been  on  this  planet.  He  be- 
lieved indeed  that  the  world  was  round,  but  that  there  was 
land  only  on  the  upper  part  of  it,  and  that  all  the  rest  was 
water.  Jerusalem  was  precisely  in  the  centre  of  the  earth. 
Underneath  this  land  there  was  a  funnel-shaped  cavity  reach- 
ing precisely  to  the  centre  of  the  earth.  At  this  central 
point  was  Satan,  imprisoned  forever  in  solid  ice ;  and  round 
him,  in  concentric  circles,  rising  tier  above  tier,  were  the 
different  gradations  of  hell,  according  to  the  degree  of  pun- 
ishment which  was  to  be  inflicted  upon  the  offenders  im- 
prisoned there.  Upon  the  opposite  side  of  the  world  from 
Jerusalem  rose  the  mountain  of  Purgatory,  where  were  the 
souls  that  had  not  committed  sins  that  would  keep  them 
in  hell  forever,  but  where  there  were  graded  punishments 
which  they  must  suffer  till  they  had  expiated  their  offences 
and  could  be  received  into  Paradise.  Outside  of  the  world, 
which  was  stationary,  there  were  nine  spheres,  solid,  but 
crystal  and  transparent.  I  do  not  know  how  to  give  you  a 


62  Religions  Reconstruction 

definite  idea  of  it,  unless  I-  ask  you  to  think  of  nine  globes 
like  those  that  cover  our  gas  jets, —  nine  crystal  globes,  one 
outside  of  the  other.  To  these  were  attached  the  moon,  the 
sun,  the  planets,  and  the  fixed  stars  beyond  all  the  planets. 
Beyond  that  was  another  sphere,  which  was  supposed  to  be 
in  some  way  connected  with  the  divine  power,  and  to  impart 
motion  to  all  the  rest.  These  spheres  revolved,  carrying  the 
planets  round  with  them.  This  was  the  only  theory  they 
could  form  for  the  explanation  of  the  movement  of  the 
heavenly  bodies  five  hundred  years  ago. 

Glance  now  at  Milton's  universe.  It  was  a  clear  and  defi- 
nite outline  of  the  finest  conception  of  the  Ptolemaic  theory. 
And  Milton,  remember,  was  writing  Paradise  Lost  not  far 
from  the  time  when  this  our  good  city  was  founded,  so  that 
it  is  less  than  three  hundred  years  ago.  Milton  believed 
that  the  world  was  spherical.  He  held  substantially  the 
same  idea  that  Dante  did,  only  he  had  his  hell  in  another 
place.  The  world  was  one  little  spot  at  the  centre  of  the 
universe.  The  whole  universe  might  be  represented  by  a 
great  circle  cut  in  two  across  the  centre,  within  which  the 
world  was  suspended.  Two-thirds  of  the  way  down  from  the 
equatorial  line  was  the  upper  dome  of  hell,  that  might  be 
compared  with  the  antarctic  circle.  Heaven  was  the  upper 
half  of  the  great  circle.  Round  the  earth  were  nine  concen- 
tric spheres  similar  to  those  of  Dante.  How  large  was  this 
universe  of  which  Milton  writes  in  his  great  poem  ?  He 
says  when  Satan  was  cast  out  of  heaven  that  he  was  nine 
days  in  falling  clear  to  the  bottom  of  everything.  Satan 
was  nine  days  falling  from  heaven  to  the  nadir.  Now,  light 
travels  so  fast  that  it  takes  but  eight  and  a  half  minutes  to 
come  from  the  sun  to  the  earth  ;  and  yet,  with  that  degree 
of  rapidity,  we  know  that  it  takes  three  and  a  half  years  for 
it  to  reach  our  next  door  neighbor  after  we  leave  our  little 


Cosmology  and  Theology  63 

solar  system.  And,  when  you  are  there,  you  are  only  on  the 
threshold  of  the  infinite  universe.  I  speak  of  this  to  indi- 
cate to  you  the  comparative  size  of  the  universe  as  men 
thought  of  it  until  within  three  hundred  years.  A  little  tiny 
play-house  was  the  grandest  conception  of  the  universe  that 
men  held  till  modern  science  came  and  taught  us  what  a 
magnificent  home  is  this  in  which  our  Infinite  Father  lives 
and  works. 

Now,  I  wish  to  outline  for  you  some  of  the  essential  ideas 
connected  with  this  conception  of  the  universe,  and  with 
them  the  essential  ideas  of  our  popular  theology,  to  show 
to  you  how  the  two  go  together,  how  they  are  inevitably, 
vitally,  related  to  each  other.  If  you  get  these  once  in  your 
mind,  you  will  no  longer  wonder  that  the  old  theology  has 
existed  so  long,  and  you  will  have  perceived  more  profound 
reasons  than  ever  for  believing  that  it  cannot  continue  to 
exist  after  the  great  changes  through  which  we  are  passing 
have  been  completed. 

i.  According  to  this  old  theory  of  things,  God  was  sup- 
posed to  have  lived  in  the  universe  from  all  eternity  before 
creating  the  world.  Suddenly  he  creates  this  system  of 
things.  He  creates  it  as  a  being  working  on  material  that 
is  outside  of  him,  precisely  as  a  carpenter  might  build  a 
ship  or  a  house.  This  God  was  supposed  to  be  an  indi- 
vidualized being  situated  in  some  far-off,  definite  point  in 
space,  and  from  that  point  sending  out  his  orders.  He 
creates  man,  making  him  suddenly,  finished  all  at  once. 
And  for  what  purpose  ?  Church  tradition  tells  us  that  there 
was  war  in  heaven,  and  that  one-third  of  all  the  inhabitants 
of  heaven  revolted  against  God  and  were  cast  out  for  that 
rebellion ;  and  it  was  to  receive  them,  to  become  their 
prison-house,  that  hell  was  created.  God  then  created  man, 
intending  to  train  this  human  race  of  ours  so  as  to  fill  up 


64  Religions  Reconstruction 

this  vacancy  in  heaven ;  that  is,  develop  these  creatures  so 
that  they  might  behold  his  glory  and  abide  with  him  and 
his  angels  forever  in  the  celestial  city. 

2.  When  God  had  created  man,  he  had,  according  to  the 
.old  ideas,  a  perfect  right  to   do  with  him  anything  that  he 
pleased.     Paul  argues  at  length  that  man  stands  in  the  same 
relation  to  God  that  the  clay  does  to  the  potter.     The  potter 
does  not  ask  the  clay  what  sort  of  a  vessel  he  shall  make  out 
of  it,  but  he  does  what  it  pleases  him  :    he  makes  one  vessel 
to  honor,  and  another  to  dishonor.     And  so  the  old  theo- 
logians told  us  that  God  had  a  right  to  do  with  men  as  he 
pleased,  illustrating  through  some  his  mercy  and  goodness, 
and  through  some  his  justice  and  power  and  wrath.     That 
is  the  baldest  expression  of  that  idea  which  now  all  moral- 
ists repudiate  with  indignation.     It  is  the  theory  that  might 
makes  right,  and  that  he  who  has  power  is  justified  in  using 
that  power  as  he  wills.     We  have  come  to  think,  in  this 
modern  world,   on  the   other  hand,   that  power,   instead  of 
conferring  right,  carries  along  with  it  the  most  tremendous 
of  all  responsibilities. 

3.  After  God  had  created  man,  he  issued  certain  commands. 
He  told  Adam,  says  the  story,  that  he  might  eat  of  any  tree 
in  the  garden  save  one  particular  tree.     The  point  I  wish  to 
notice  here  is  that  this  supposed  command  of  Deity  is  appar- 
ently arbitrary.    He  is  represented  as  ruling  man  as  a  despot 
rules  his  subjects.     His  will  is  law.     Anything  that  he  tells 
them  that  they  must  not  do,  they  must  not  do  under  penalty. 
Anything  that  he  tells  them  that  they  may  do,  they  may  do 
and  be  rewarded.     And  yet,  so  far  as  we  can  see,  there  is  no 
natural,  necessary  distinction  of  right  and  wrong  in  these 
things  at  all.     There  is  no  reason  that  we  can  find  why  God 
should  not  have  picked  out  some  other  tree  than  that  precise 
one,  and  have  forbidden  them  to  eat  of  that.     To  us  the 


Cosmology  and  TJieology 


command  seems  perfectly  arbitrary.  And  here  is  the  origin 
of  the  distinction  that  has  gone  through  all  theological 
thought,  and  from  which  we  are  but  getting  free  to-day,  —  a 
distinction  between  natural  goodness  and  piety  or  religion. 
Piety,  religion,  was  the  doing  of  those  things  which  God  had 
arbitrarily  commanded.  He  issues  decrees,  he  passes  laws. 
Those  laws  are  not  a  part  of  the  nature  of  things,  not  inher- 
ent in  the  world,  in  the  structure  of  man,  in  the  structure  of 
society  ;  and,  if  they  did  not  obey  these  laws,  he  had  a  right 
to  punish  them  to  any  extent  he  pleased.  There  has  always 
been  this  distinction  between  natural  and  religious  goodness. 
When  Mr.  Moody  was  last  in  this  city,  he  used  that  phrase 
that  has  been  quoted  so  often  that  it  is  trite,  but  that  is  so 
intimately  bound  up  with  this  distinction  that  I  must  repeat. 
He  told  us  that  morality  did  not  touch  the  question  of  salva- 
tion. And  he  was  perfectly  consistent,  perfectly  right,  ac- 
cording to  the  old  theological  ideas.  Here  were  men  who 
had  broken  these  arbitrary  laws  of  God  ;  and  he  had  a  right, 
according  to  those  ideas,  to  do  with  them  as  he  pleased,  to 
punish  them  as  he  would  for  their  disobedience.  He  need 
not  ask  the  question  whether  they  were  kind  in  their  families, 
whether  they  paid  their  debts,  whether  they  stood  in  right 
relations  to  their  neighbors.  None  of  these  things  are  of 
any  importance  as  compared  with  the  question  how  they 
were  related  to  God.  If  a  province  of  a  kingdom  is  in  re- 
bellion, or  if  a  man  has  committed  an  overt  act  of  treason, 
the  question  is  never  raised  whether  he  loves  his  children, 
whether  he  is  kind  and  honest  towards  his  fellow-men.  These 
virtues  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  that  other  question, 
whether  a  pardon  shall  be  granted.  Man  having  then  re- 
volted against  this  supreme  power,  God  had  a  right  to  estab- 
lish any  conditions  of  pardon  that  he  chose.  If  a  man  has 
forfeited  his  life,  he  has  no  claim  whatever  on  the  supreme 


66  Religions  Reconstruction 

power.     That  power  may  use  its  discretion  as  to  whether  it 
will  forgive  him  or  not  and  on  what  conditions. 

4.  Then,    under   this    old    theory,  you  will  notice  that  a 
miraculous  government  of  the  world  does  not  seem   at  all 
incongruous.     God  is  outside  of  this  system  of  nature.     He 
looks  over  the  world  as  a  thing  external  to  himself ;  and  why 
should  he  not — this    little    tiny  universe  such  as  they  be- 
lieved it, — why  should  he  not  interfere  with  it,  for  the  sake  of 
carrying  out  his  plans  of  redeeming  the  elect  ?     Why  should 
he  not,  in  answer  to  prayer,  interfere  with  one  of  these  little 
laws,  which  could  not  be  supposed  to  be  of  much  importance, 
except  as  to  the  development  of  his  church  on  earth  ?     Why 
not  stop  the  movement  of  the  little  sun  in  the  heavens,  if  he 
might   answer   the   prayer   of   one  of   his  famous  saints  or 
heroes  ?     All  this  was  perfectly  natural  on  that   theory  of 
the  universe. 

5.  Then  the  old  conception  of   the   Bible  is  part  of  it. 
God's  laws  not  being  inherent  in  the  nature  of  things,  not 
the  laws  of   the  body  and  heart  and  mind  and  spirit,  but 
external,  arbitrary  commands,  there  was  need  of  a  code  of 
laws  being  published,  so  that  his  subjects  might  know  what 
they  were.     And  that  is  precisely  the  idea  that  underlies  ail 
the  old  thoughts  of  the  divine  revelation.     There  was,  no 
way  by  which  people  could  be  supposed  to  find  out  what 
God  wanted  of  them,  except  as  he  published  his  commands. 
This  is  the  idea  underlying  the  whole  scheme  of  revelation. 

6.  Then,  again,  under  that  theory,  the  church  becomes  so 
many  of  these  men  and  women  as  have  accepted  the  terms 
of  pardon  and  have  arrayed  themselves  on  the  Lord's  side. 
They  become  God's  army  in  the  world,  as  they  have  been 
always  called, —  "  the  church  militant," — to  fight  his  enemies. 
It  is  their  business  to  proclaim  the  terms  of  God's  pardon, 
to  get  as  many  rebels  as  possible  to  lay  down  their  arms 


Cosmology  and  Theology  67 

and  come  over  to  the  Lord's  side.  This  is  the  purpose  for 
which  the  church  existed ;  and  it  was  perfectly  natural  under 
the  old  theory  of  the  universe  and  of  man. 

7.  The  world  and  its  inhabitants  having  been  created  to 
make  good  the  loss  of  those  who  were  cast  out  of  heaven,  it 
was  natural  that  the  system  should  be  brought  to  an  end 
when  that  end  was  accomplished ;  and  how  more  naturally 
than  by  a  general  judgment,  an  assize  where  men  should 
be  tested,  a  sort  of  competitive  examination  to  find  out  who 
could  fulfil  the  terms  by  which  they  could  be  admitted  into 
heaven  ?  A  general  judgment  was  a  necessary  part  of  the 
scheme  to  wind  up  all  mundane  affairs.  Those  who  were 
rejected  had  no  right  to  make  any  complaints;  for  they  had 
had  an  opportunity  to  accept  the  same  terms  with  the  rest, 
and  had  declined  to  do  so.  They  had  deliberately  revolted 
against  God,  and  could  not  complain  if  they  must  share  the 
lot  of  his  adversaries.  So  that  heaven  and  hell  were  a  nec- 
essary part  of  this  plan  as  a  natural  close  of  the  whole 
scheme. 

I  wish  you  to  note  —  and  it  is  for  this  purpose  that  I 
have  gone  over  this  point  by  point  —  that  every  single  one 
of  the  doctrines  making  up  the  old  scheme  of  theology  is  a 
necessary  part  of  that  theory  of  the  world.  They  root  them- 
selves in  it,  and  spring  out  of  it.  They  take  their  shape 
from  it,  and  adapt  themselves  to  it.  They  are  a  vital  and 
necessary  part  of  it. 

But  you  will  note,  also,  that,  if  there  should  come  a  radical 
change  in  this  conception  of  the  world,  all  the  doctrines  of 
theology  springing  out  of  that  old  theory  must  feel  the 
change,  and  can  find  no  place  in  a  radically  different  con- 
ception of  the  world.  Now  has  such  a  change  come  about? 
It  is  precisely  this  change  that  has  been  going  on  in  men's 
minds  concerning  the  nature  of  the  universe  which  has  com- 


68  Religious  Reconstruction 

pelled  all  this  reconstruction,  which  has  set  the  modern  mind 
into  a  ferment,  which  has  caused  this  religious  unrest.  Up 
to  the  time  of  Kepler,  the  discoverer  of  the  three  laws  of 
planetary  motion,  men  had  never  risen  to  a  rational  concep- 
tion of  any  way  by  which  the  planets  could  be  kept  in  their 
spheres,  and  their  motions  in  their  orbits  continued,  except 
the  idea,  which  Kepler  himself  held,  that  an  angel  was  dele- 
gated to  reside  in  each  planet  to  control  its  movements. 
They  knew  of  no  natural  explanation  whatever.  As  late 
as  the  time  of  Newton,  the  first  demonstration  was  made  of 
any  natural  force  or  power  that  was  able  to  explain  the 
motion  of  the  heavenly  bodies.  Here,  then,  in  the  discov- 
eries of  Copernicus,  Kepler,  Newton,  begins  this  great 
change  concerning .  the  nature  of  the  world  that  has  been 
carried  on  by  scientific  students  since  their  day,  until  at  last 
we  have  discovered  the  antiquity  of  this  earth  and  of  man, 
— the  natural  origin  and  development  of  the  human  race. 
And  the  work  of  change  seems  to  be  nearing  its  comple- 
tion. I  ask  you  to  note  that  this  radical  change  is  so  far- 
reaching  that  it  must  compel  complete  reconstruction  of  all 
our  thought.  I  will  take  your  time  only  a  few  minutes  in 
pointing  out  some  of  the  essentials  of  that  change. 

1.  What   now  do  we  think  of  the  universe?     Instead  of 
its  being  a  tiny  affair  created  at  a  definite  point  in  the  his- 
tory of  things,  created  by  a  power  from  without,  we  know 
that  this  physical  universe  is  practically  infinite.     We  can- 
not even  dream  of  a  limit  in  space.     We  not  only  think,  we 
know  that  it  is  practically  eternal  in  duration.     We  cannot 
even  dream  of  a  time  when  it  did  not  exist. 

2.  And  what  of  God?     We  no  longer  think  of  him  as  a 
being  outside  of  things,  working  on  them  from  without.     We 
think  of  him  as  the  spirit,  the  life,  as,  so  to  speak,  the  soul 
of  the  universe,  as  my  soul  inheres  in  my  body.     Where? 


Cosmology  and  Theology  69 

I  do  not  know.  Is  it  located  ?  I  do  not  know.  It  seems  to 
be  everywhere,  animating  every  part  of  me  from  head  to 
foot, —  my  physical,  mental,  affectional,  spiritual  life.  The 
soul  is  myself.  And  so  God  is  in  the  universe,  its  spirit,  its 
life.  Where  ?  Everywhere.  In  the  grass-blade  as  well  as 
in  the  sun,  in  the  life  of  human  civilization,  in  the  progress 
of  man. 

3.  And  now  where  are  the  laws  of  God?     What  are  his 
laws  ?     They  are    no   longer  thought  of  as  statutory  enact- 
ments.    They  are  not  the  expression  of  any  arbitrary  will. 
They  are  no  longer  written  by  inspiration  in  any  book.     The 
laws  of  God  are  only  such  laws  as  are  inherent  in  the  nature 
of  things,  the  laws  of  his  world,  the  laws  illustrated  in  human 
life,  human  thought,  human  feeling,  human  aspiration.     The 
laws  of  God  are  the  essential  constituting  laws  of  the  uni- 
verse and  human  life  and  growth.     If  these  ever  become 
written   in   any  book,  so  far  they  are  God's  laws.     If  any 
other  laws  are  written  in  all  the  books  of  the  world,  they  are 
not  God's  laws,  but  the  vain  imaginings  of  man.     The  laws 
of  God  are  the  vital  laws,  the  laws  by  which  all  things  exist, 
by  which  all  things  grow,  by  which  they  reach  on  towards  the 
higher  and  the  better. 

4.  Under  this  conception  of   the  universe,  you  see  very 
easily  that  there  is  no  place  for  miracle.     The  man  .who  has 
accepted  the  modern  theory  of  things  does  not  care  to  argue 
or  question  about  miracle.     It  seems  to  him  absurd  on  the 
face  of  it.    It  is  ruled  out  as  having  no  place  in  the  universe. 
He  believes  that  God  is  not  outside  of  these  laws,  so  that  he 
can   break   them.     They  are   God's  habits  of   working,  his 
methods  of  thought,  the  thrilling  impulses  of  his  very  life,  so 
that  any  miracle  that  should  interfere  with  these  would  be  a 
very  contradiction  of   the  methods  of   God's  working.     It 
would  be  as  though  God  should  interfere  with  one  hand  with 
what  he  is  doing  with  the  other. 


7O  Religious  Reconstruction 

5.  Under  this  theory  there  is  no  possible  room  for  forgive- 
ness, in  the  old  sense  of  the  word ;  that  is,  such  a  forgiveness 
as  releases  a  person  from  the  results  of  his  own  thoughts, 
feelings,  actions.     This  modern  universe  knows  no  such  for- 
giveness as  that.     Under  the  inflexible   laws  of   cause  and 
effect,  things  move  on  to  their  accomplishment.     This  is  no 
hopeless  doctrine,  but  the  most  cheerful  doctrine  in  all  the 
world.     For  these  forces  of  which  we  are  a  part,  and  which 
environ  us  on  every  hand,  are  not  dominating  us  and  making 
us  their  victims.     Rather  are  we    largely  able  to  dominate 
them,  to  reshape  and  control  them,  so  that  a  man  may  work 
himself  out  of  all  the  evil  results  of  his  past,  and  turn  these 
dead    selves   into    stepping-stones   by  which   to    "  climb   to 
higher  things." 

6.  And  then  as  to  the  future.     A  man  is  good  if  he  is  in 
accord  with   these   natural,  necessary,   divine    laws  of   life. 
And,  if  he  is  good  in  this  life  and  in  this  world,  he  is  good 
in  any  world ;  and,  if  he  is  bad  in  this  world,  he  will  be  bad 
in  any  world, —  getting  into  heaven  would  not  help  him  one 
whit.     The  only  salvation  is  to  get  into  accord  with  these 
divine  laws  that  constitute  the  nature  of  things.     And  if  a 
man  be  in  accord  with  this  nature  of  things, —  since  there 
is  one  God,  one  force,  one  law,  throughout   the    universe, 
—  if  he   be  in  harmonious  accord  with  these  laws,  he  must 
of  necessity  be  in  harmony  with  the  entire  universe  in  what- 
ever world  he  may  some  day  find  himself. 

These  only  as  a  hint  of  the  kind  of  universe  in  which  we 
find  ourselves  in  the  modern  world.  I  need  not  argue  it 
at  any  length.  In  this  universe  there  is  absolutely  no  place 
for  the  old  theological  beliefs.  They  are  uncalled  for. 
They  have  no  mission  to  fulfil,  no  part  to  play.  They  are 
as  antiquated  and  outgrown  as  are  the  astronomical  devices 
for  making  the  planets  move  in  their  orbits  that  the  Ptole- 


Cosmology  and  Theology  71 

raaic  scientists  dreamed  of.  Newton's  law  of  gravity  ex- 
plains the  movements  of  all  the  heavenly  bodies  everywhere, 
so  that  those  devices  are  as  children's  playthings  that  a  man 
outgrows.  So  these  conceptions  of  the  modern  world  that 
are  coming  to  be  a  part  of  the  popular  thought  have  anti- 
quated and  left  behind  all  the  old  theological  makeshifts 
which  were  a  part  of  the  old  theories,  which  have  passed 
away  from  the  minds  of  every  free  and  intelligent  man  and 
woman.  It  will  be  long  I  know  before  the  change  will  be 
completely  recognized,  frankly  seen,  and  accepted  by  every- 
body, because  it  takes  time  for  ideas  that  are  so  sweeping, 
so  far-reaching,  so  universal  in  their  scope,  to  become  a  part 
of  the  furnishing  of  the  average  brain.  But  the  change  is 
as  inevitable  as  is  the  coming  of  day,  when  the  first  faint 
streak  of  light  is  seen  in  the  east.  It  is  a  long  while  before 
the  world  is  light.  The  highest  hill-tops  catch  the  flush  first, 
while  shadows  cover  the  valleys.  It  is  still  dark  as  night  in 
the  lowest  places  of  the  earth.  But  the  change  is  coming ; 
and,  just  as  fast  as  the  old  world  wheels  over  and  turns  its 
dark  places  to  the  sun,  the  light  comes  in  and  the  shadows 
flee  away. 


IDEAS  OF  GOD,  OLD  AND  NEW. 


I  PROPOSE  to  treat  this  great  theme  as  comprehensively  as 
I  can  in  the  time  that  is  allowed  me,  under  three  different 
aspects, —  as  to  the  nature  of  God,  as  to  his  character,  and 
as  to  his  relations  to  man. 

I  shall  first  outline,  as  fairly  as  I  know  how,  the  thoughts 
about  him  that  have  been  held  in  the  old  churches  of  the 
past,  and  that  are  still  represented  in  their  creeds,  and  then 
the  new  ideas  that  are  forced  upon  us  by  the  growth  of 
humanity  in  knowledge  and  in  moral  ideals. 

It  does  not  seem  to  me  at  all  strange  that  in  the  progress 
of  thought  on  this  great  subject  there  is  a  sense  on  the  part 
of  many  of  something  in  the  way  of  bewilderment  and  loss. 
.Men  have  waked  up  to  find  themselves  in  a  boundless  uni- 
verse ;  and,  when  they  ask  what  God  is  or  where,  their 
question  seems  to  be  lost  in  the  wide  reaches  of  empty 
space.  The  universe  is  so  immense  that  it  is  hard  for  us  to 
find  in  it  a  resting-place  for  those  old  affections  of  the  heart, 
—  hard  to  find  a  nest  where  we  may  be  quiet  and  at  peace. 
At  first  thought,  it  was  certainly  easier  to  feel  that  God 
was  near  to  us  when  we  held  the  old  views.  Go  back  for 
a  moment  to  Rachel,  when  she  was  leaving  her  father's 
house.  The  gods  that  she  trusted  in,  from  which  she  de- 
rived comfort  and  peace,  were  certain  small  portable  images 
or  idols  that  she  could  carry  with  her.  As  she  was  leaving 
home,  it  is  said  that  she  stole  them  from  her  father  and  hid 


Ideas  of  God,   Old  and  New  73 

them  in  the  furnishings  of  the  camel  on  which  she  was  rid- 
ing, thinking  that  thus  she  was  carrying  with  her  the  pres- 
ence of  these  divine  beings,  who  might  insure  her  comfort, 
support,  prosperity  and  peace.  If  our  deities  are  such  that 
we  can  see  them,  handle  them,  come  into  this  sensible  con- 
tact with  them,  carry  them  about  with  us,  it  is  easy  to  have 
a  sense  of  the  divine  nearness  and  presence.  In  any  case, 
when  the  universe  was  so  very  small,  when  God  was  sup- 
posed to  hold  his  court  only  a  little  way  out  of  sight  above 
the  blue,  whence  he  could  despatch  an  angel  messenger  to 
be  at  our  side  almost  before  a  prayer  could  die  into  an  echo 
on  our  lips,  it  was  very  easy  to  think  of  God  as  close  by,  and 
of  divine  help  as  real  and  accessible.  Even  the  great  sys- 
tem of  the  universe,  which  bears  the  name  of  Ptolemy,  and 
which  was  almost  infinitely  larger  than  the  early  dreams  of 
the  world,  was  still  comparatively  small.  God  was  not  far 
away.  There  was  a  place  where  he  could  be  found.  He 
abode  at  some  particular  spot.  A  prayer  could  reach  him, 
a  messenger  could  be  sent  from  him  to  us.  He  was  a  tangi- 
ble being  to  the  mind  of  man ;  and  so  it  was  easy  to  think 
of  him  as  near  us.  But  to-day  all  these  forms  have  faded ; 
and  we  stand  tiny  specks,  self-conscious  indeed,  thinking, 
wondering,  but  knowing  that  we  are  in  a  limitless  universe, 
and  not  able  to  picture  to  our  thought  one  single  spot  where 
God  is  in  any  sense  different  from  that  in  which  he  is  in 
every  spot  and  everywhere.  And  the  first  thought,  I  say, 
is  naturally  bewilderment  and  loss. 

I  propose  now  to  outline  as  clearly  and  as  simply  as  pos- 
sible some  of  the  old  ideas,  and  then  to  outline  some  of  the 
new,  and  to  suggest  the  question  whether  God  is  really  lost 
to  us,  really  farther  away,  really  less  accessible  than  in  the 
olden  days. 

Some  of  the  early  Hebrew  thinkers  believed  and  taught 


74  Religious  Reconstruction 

that  God  was  not  only  personal,  but  a  personal  being  in  the 
sense  that  we  are ;  that  he  was  not  only  in  a  particular  place, 
but  that  he  had  a  body.  And  some  of  the  old  theologians  of 
the  Church  held  and  taught  precisely  the  same  ideas,  that 
God  was  a  being  embodied.  The  Old  Testament  hints  the 
same  idea  in  a  great  many  places.  When  Moses  went  up 
into  the  mountain,  he  saw  God;  and  the  brightness  was  so 
dazzling  that  its  reflection  on  the  face  of  Moses  was  so 
radiant  that  the  people  could  not  look  upon  him  after  he 
descended.  God  wrote  with  his  finger  the  commandments 
on  the  tables  of  stone.  In  many  places  there  are  represen- 
tations or,  at  least,  glimpses  or  traces  of  his  having  been 
seen.  Either,  then,  he  was  embodied  or  assumed  form  and 
shape  for  the  time  being,  according  to  these  Old  Testament 
teachings.  But  it  is  only  just  for  us  to  say  that  most  of  the 
Hebrew  and  most  of  the  Christian  theologians  have  taught 
in  the  most  explicit  way  that  God  is  pure  spirit,  without 
body,  parts  or  passions.  They  taught  it  in  as  clear  and 
grand  a  way,  so  far  as  that  part  of  it  is  concerned,  as  we 
can  teach  it  or  think  it  to-day.  Only  I  think  it  fair  to  say 
that  throughout  the  entire  history  of  the  Church  it  has  been 
taught  that  God  was,  in  some  special,  particular  way,  located 
somewhere.  Dante,  in  his  poem  of  the  "  Paradiso,"  repre- 
sents that  there  is  one  special  place,  not  where  God  can  be 
literally  seen,  but  where  the  outshining  of  his  glory  is  such 
that  he  is  hidden  by  excess  of  light.  He  in  some  special 
sense  is  there,  but  the  glory  is  too  bright  for  mortal  senses 
to  discern  more  than  the  outshining  far  away. 

Milton  gives  us  substantially  the  same  picture  in  his  Para- 
dise Lost.  There  is  a  special  place  in  heaven  where  God 
abides  as  he  does  nowhere  else  in  the  universe.  Here  is  his 
throne,  the  seat  and  centre  of  his  power,  whence  radiates  all 
the  wondrous  working  force  of  his  might  to  the  uttermost 


Ideas  of  God,   Old  and  New  75 

points  of  the  universe.  And  you  are  perfectly  well  aware  — 
you  who  are  acquainted  with  the  staple  of  preaching  on  this 
subject  —  that  every  little  while  there  are  speculative  sermons 
preached  on  the  subject,  Where  is  the  seat  of  God's  power, 
where  is  heaven  ?  whether  it  is  located  in  some  special  star 
or  planet.  I  think  Mr.  Talmage,  within  two  or  three  years, 
has  taught  that  probably  heaven  and  the  throne  of  God  and 
the  seat  of  his  power  are  to  be  found  on  some  central  star 
of  all  the  universe  round  which  everything  else  is  supposed 
to  be  revolving.  I  speak  of  these  to  show  that  the  old  the- 
ology has  not  wholly  outgrown  as  yet  this  attempt  to  locate 
God  at  some  specific  point  in  the  universe. 

Now,  as  to  the  nature  of  God.  I  have  already  treated  in 
part  what  I  had  in  mind  to  say  of  their  teaching  of  his  being, 
of  his  power  over  the  life  of  all  things,  of  his  being  located 
at  some  specific  point  in  the  universe.  Now,  I  wish  to  give 
you  a  definition  of  that  curious  speculation  of  the  Church  as 
to  the  interior  structure,  so  to  speak,  of  the  nature  of  deity. 
I  am  going  to  impose  on  your  patience  to  the  extent  of  read- 
ing to  you  the  definition  of  the  Trinity,  as  embodied  in  the 
Athanasian  Creed.  I  doubt  if  there  be  a  single  person  in 
this  house  —  you  will  not  think  that  I  am  impeaching  your 
intelligence  —  who  can  give  a  clear,  explicit  definition  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Perhaps  I  ought  to  except  one  or 
two,  when  I  make  that  statement.  It  is  not  strange,  how- 
ever, that  you  are  not  able  to  do  it,  as  you  have  not  studied 
it  especially.  But  it  did  seem  to  me  strange  about  the  time 
I  was  leaving  the  orthodox  church,  when  my  people  were 
troubled  as  to  whether  I  was  sound  or  not  on  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  that  after  some  weeks  of  inquiry  I  was  not 
able  to  find  a  single  one  of  my  church  members  who  could 
tell  me  what  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  was.  Every  time 
I  asked  the  question,  they  gave  it  to  me  in  some  mutilated 


76  Religious  Reconstruction 

form  that  had  been  condemned  as  heresy  in  some  council  of 
the  Church.  I  should  like,  then,  to  put  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  on  record  here,  so  that  you  may  be  able  to  refer  to 
it,  and  know  what  it  is  :  — 

1.  Whosoever  will  be  saved :  before  all  things  it  is  necessary  that  he 
hold  the  Catholic  Faith : 

2.  Which  faith  except  every  one  do  keep  whole  and  undefiled :  with- 
out doubt  he  shall  perish  everlastingly. 

3.  And  the  Catholic  Faith  is  this;   That  we  worship  one  God  in 
Trinity,  and  Trinity  in  Unity; 

4.  Neither   confounding   the    Persons :    nor   dividing   the    Substance 
(Essence). 

5.  For  there  is  one  Person  of  the  Father ;    another  of  the  Son ;   and 
another  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

6.  But  the  Godhead  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  all  one;   the  Glory  equal,  the  Majesty  coeternal. 

7.  Such  as  the  Father  is;  such  is  the  Son:  and  such  is  the  Holy 
Ghost. 

8.  The  Father  uncreate  (uncreated) :   the   Son  uncreate  (uncreated) : 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  uncreate  (uncreated). 

9.  The  Father  incomprehensible  (unlimited) :   the  Son  incomprehen- 
sible (unlimited) :   and  the  Holy  Ghost  incomprehensible  (unlimited,  or 
infinite). 

10.  The    Father   eternal :   the    Son   eternal :    and    the    Holy   Ghost 
eternal. 

11.  And  yet  they  are  not  three  eternals :   but  one  eternal. 

12.  As   also  they  are  not  three   uncreated:    nor    three    incompre- 
hensibles   (infinites),   but  one    uncreated ;    and    one    incomprehensible 
(infinite). 

13.  So  likewise  the  Father  is  Almighty:   the  Son  almighty:   and  the 
Holy  Ghost  almighty. 

15.  So  the  Father  is  God:  the  Son  is  God  and  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God. 

16.  And  yet  they  are  not  three  Gods :  but  one  God. 

17.  So  likewise  the  Father  is  Lord  :   the  Son  is  Lord  :   and  the  Holy 
Ghost  Lord. 

18.  And  yet  not  three  Lords  :  but  one  Lord. 

19.  For  like  as  we  are  compelled  by  the  Christian  verity:  to  acknowl- 
edge every  Person  by  himself  to  be  God  and  Lord : 


Ideas  of  God,   Old  and  New  77 

20.  So  are  we  forbidden  by  the  Catholic  Religion :   to  say,  There  be 
(are)  three  Gods,  or  three  Lords. 

21.  The  Father  is  made  of  none  :   neither  created,  nor  begotten. 

22.  The  Son  is  of  the  Father  alone :  not  made,  nor  created :   but 
begotten. 

23.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son :   neither  made, 
nor  created,  nor  begotten :   but  proceeding. 

24.  So  there  is  one  Father,  not  three  Fathers :  one  Son,  not  three 
Sons :   one  Holy  Ghost,  not  three  Holy  Ghosts. 

25.  And   in   this   Trinity  none   is   afore,  or   after   another:   none  is 
greater,  or  less  than  another  (there  is  nothing  before,  or  after :   nothing 
greater  or  less). 

26.  But  the  whole  three  Persons  are  coeternal,  and  coequal. 

27.  So  that  in  all  things,  as  afore-said :   the  Unity  in  Trinity,  and  the 
Trinity  in  Unity,  is  to  be  worshipped. 

28.  He  therefore  that  will  be  saved,  must  (let  him)  thus  think  of  the 
Trinity. 

So  much,  then,  as  to  the  nature  of  God  as  taught  by  the 
old  faiths.  I  shall  not  take  your  time  by  entering  upon  any 
discussion  of  this  mystery  of  the  Trinity  or  any  attempt  to 
disprove  it.  I  am  simply  outlining  now  this  old  teaching  as 
to  the  nature  of  God. 

Now  let  me  pass  to  the  second  point, —  the  divine  charac- 
ter as  taught  in  the  old  creeds.  The  grandest  words  are 
used  to  tell  us  that  God  is  everything  perfect  that  we  can 
conceive.  That  must  be  admitted  in  all  simplicity  and  fair- 
ness. He  is  almighty  in  power,  almighty  in  wisdom,  al- 
mighty in  goodness.  All  divine  characteristics  are  ascribed 
to  him;  and  yet  there  are  traces  of  contradiction  running  all 
through  these  old  ideas  of  him.  It  is  not  strange  that  this 
should  be  so.  Men  were  confronted  at  the  first  with  the 
dual  nature  of  the  universe.  If  there  was  light,  there  was 
also  darkness.  If  there  was  warmth,  there  was  also  cold.  If 
there  was  life,  there  was  also  death.  If  there  was  joy,  there 
was  also  sorrow.  If  there  was  goodness,  benevolence,  gen- 


78  Religious  Reconstruction 

erosity,  there  was  also  evil  of  every  kind  and  name.  Men 
were  confronted  with  the  problem,  How  to  reconcile  these 
contradictions  ?  Some  of  the  early  religions  did  it  through 
their  multiplicity  of  gods.  They  had  good  gods  and  bad 
gods.  The  Persians,  by  the  grandest  thought  in  this  specific 
direction  that  the  world  has  seen,  solved  it  by  supposing  that 
there  were  two  equal  deities  in  universal  and  perpetual  con- 
flict,—  one  good  and  one  bad.  They  imagined  some  incom- 
prehensible destiny  above  these  age-long  conflicts,  that  was 
some  time  to  solve  and  to  bring  out  of  the  darkness  and  the 
evil  good  and  joy.  The  early  Christian  Church  was  led  into 
its  controversy  with  the  Manichaeans  over  this  question. 
And  who  were  the  Manichasans  ?  They  were  simply  those 
who  maintained  a  sort  of  Persian  dualism.  They  believed 
that  there  was  a  good  infinite  spirit  and  a  bad  spirit  which 
was  almost  infinite.  The  Church,  then,  had  this  problem  to 
solve ;  and  it  has  solved  it,  it  seems  to  me,  in  an  entirely 
unsatisfactory  and  inconsistent  way,  and  it  must  be  recon- 
structed in  order  to  bring  it  into  accord  with  the  highest 
thought  of  the  civilized  world.  For,  while  the  Church  has 
always  taught  that  God  was  infinite  goodness  and  wisdom 
and  love  and  power,  it  has  also  taught  that  he  created  the 
world,  and  then  either  ordained,  as  it  has  been  generally 
taught,  or  permitted  —  the  difference  in  morals  is  hardly  per- 
ceptible—  the  fall  of  man  and  his  utter  ruin  through  sin. 
This  might  be  consistent  with  the  goodness  of  God,  if  there 
were  to  be  some  redemption,  some  deliverance,  from  all  this 
etil ;  but  the  Church  has  taught  that  this  was  the  final  con- 
dition of  things.  This  evil,  this  sin,  this  sorrow,  were  final, 
concerning  the  larger  part  of  the  race.  It  has  taught  that 
God  has  permitted,  through  all  these  ages,  the  greater  part 
of  the  world  to  lie  in  ignorance  and  darkness  concerning  his 
very  wishes  and  commands,  thus  showing  him  partial,  as 


Ideas  of  God,   Old  and  New  79 

having  selected  only  a  few  upon  whom  to  bestow  the  grace 
of  his  guidance  and  his  love. 

God,  then,  in  the  old  doctrines  seems  to  me  to  be  thus 
a  divided,  impossible,  inconsistent  being ;  for,  as  Tennyson 
in  one  of  his  poems  passionately  exclaims, 

"A  God  of  love  and  of  hell  together  —  it  cannot  be  thought!" 

No  man  can  think  contradictions  into  unity.  There  is  no 
bringing  together  the  thought  of  infinite  love,  infinite  sor- 
row, and  endless  pain.  The  teachings,  then,  of  the  old 
Church  concerning  the  character  of  God  seem  to  me  utterly 
inconsistent  and  untenable ;  for,  while  they  ascribe  to  him 
all  honor,  glory,  beauty,  goodness,  they  have  pictured  him 
—  nay,  they  picture  him  to-day  in  their  creeds  —  as — how 
shall  I  express  myself? — as  a  worse  being  than  any  man 
that  ever  lived.  There  is  no  character  in  human  history, 
there  is  no  character  in  human  poetry,  there  is  no  character 
in  fiction  that  men  have  ever  dreamed,  so  utterly  evil  and 
cruel  as  is  the  character  of  God  as  depicted  in  the  popular 
creeds  of  the  world.  This  alongside  of  infinite  goodness. 
So  much,  then,  for  the  divine  character  in  the  old  teaching. 
3.  Now,  a  word  as  to  the  relation  in  which  he  has  been 
supposed  to  stand  to  man.  Of  course,  he  was  Creator,  he 
was  Father.  But,  immediately  after  the  fall  of  man,  he  is 
supposed  to  have  withdrawn  himself;  and  there  is  a  gulf 
between  the  Father  and  his  children.  Instead  of  exercising 
love  and  kindness  and  tender  mercy,  he  is  angry  with  the 
wicked  every  day.  Of  course,  he  pours  out  upon  the  world 
the  general  mercies  of  sunshine  and  rain,  the  bestowal  of  the 
ordinary  good  things  of  life ;  but  he  is  supposed  to  be  at 
enmity  with  his  children.  Hence  arose  the  necessity  of  the 
doctrine  of  atonement,  by  which  to  bridge  over  this  gulf  of 
separation.  The  birth,  life,  teachings,  suffering,  and  death 


8o  Religious  Reconstruction 

of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  were  devised  to  provide  a  mediator 
between  the  estranged  and  alienated  children  of  God  and  his 
still  fatherly  heart,  that  is  capable  of  being  fatherly  at  least 
towards  those  children  who  repent.  God  grew  to  be  an 
inexorable  and  far-away  power ;  and  the  human  hearts  of  the 
world  turned,  in  their  love,  their  helplessness,  their  weakness, 
to  the  tenderness  and  pity  of  Jesus,  thinking  of  him  as  an 
entirely  separate  being.  It  seems  to  me  perfectly  clear  that, 
in  spite  of  the  definitions  of  the  creed,  Jesus  has  been 
looked  upon  as  an  entirely  separate  being,  standing  apart 
from  God,  in  his  presence,  and  showing  his  hands  and  the 
wound  in  his  side,  and  pleading  with  the  inexorable  Father 
that  for  his  sake  he  would  be  kind  and  tender  to  his 
children. 

But,  in  the  course  of  theological  development,  Jesus  him- 
self became  withdrawn  from  the  sympathies  of  man,  and 
turned  into  the  inexorable  judge  ;  for  it  is  Jesus  who  is  to 
sit  on  the  throne  at  the  last  day,  and  say,  "  Depart  from  me, 
ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire."  But  the  human  heart  still 
longed  for  tenderness  and  pity  somewhere  ;  and  hence  arose 
the  belief  in  the  motherhood  of  Mary  as  being  something 
divine,  and  so  arose  the  belief  in  thousands  of  saints  who 
could  still  feel  the  infirmities  of  their  brethren,  and  on  ac- 
count of  their  merits  plead  with  God  for  mercy  and  help 
and  sympathy  for  their  brethren.  So  much,  then,  for  the 
relation  in  which  God  has  been  supposed  to  stand  to  man. 

However  much  of  comfort  and  of  cheer  may  have  seemed 
to  go  out  of  the  world  with  the  departure  of  these  old-time 
thoughts  of  God,  it  seems  to  me  very  strange  indeed  when 
I  hear  any  one  lament  the  change.  My  experience  with 
those  who  have  held  to  these  old  beliefs  is  that  the  fear 
frequently,  almost  generally,  predominates  over  the  comfort. 
By  as  much  as  their  consciences  are  tender,  by  so  much  do 


Ideas  of  God,   Old  and  New  8 1 

people  stand  in  awe  of  this  inexorable  being,  and  wonder 
whether  they  have  really  complied  with  the  conditions,  so 
that  they  may  look  for  pardon  and  peace. 

Let  me  speak  now  a  little  concerning  the  nature  and 
character  of  God  and  his  relation  to  man,  as  we  are  com- 
pelled to  think  of  them  in  the  modern  world  ?  What  is 
God's  nature  ?  What  shall  we  think  of  God  ?  In  one  way, 
we  cannot  think  God.  If  we  could  define  God,  we  should 
be  atheists  ;  for  what  does  definition  mean  ?  It  means  draw- 
ing a  line  about  anything.  Can  you  draw  a  line  about  the 
infinite  ?  Any  circle  that  can  be  drawn  must  of  necessity 
exclude  unspeakably  more  than  it  can  include.  We  cannot, 
then,  define  deity.  By  as  much  as  God  is  really  God,  infi- 
nite power,  infinite  wisdom,  infinite  love,  he  must  forever 
exceed  on  every  hand,  so  that  we  cannot  grasp  the  divine. 
But  we  must  think  something.  I  think  of  God  as  the  infi- 
nite spirit,  life  of  all  the  universe.  If  you  ask  me  where 
he  is,  I  do  not  know  how  I  can  do  better  by  way  of  illus- 
tration than  to  touch  once  more  upon  one  that  I  used  some 
time  ago.  Where  is  God  in  the  modern  world  ?  Where  is 
he  not?  There  is  not  one  spot,  I  suppose,  where  we  can 
think  that  he  abides  in  any  special  or  peculiar  sense.  But 
all  his  wisdom,  all  his  power,  all  his  love,  are  here,  at  any 
point  in  the  universe,  at  any  moment.  Instead  of  there 
being  an  empty  boundless  space,  God  fills  with  his  thrilling 
life  all  spaces  and  all  worlds. 

Where  is  my  soul,  my  life,  whatever  you  choose  to  call  it  ? 
Is  it  in  my  head  or  my  hand  or  my  foot  or  my  heart  ?  It 
is  in  them  all.  At  any  particular  time,  it  is  there  where  I 
concentrate  my  thought,  my  feeling,  my  action.  When  I 
am  writing,  I  am  at  the  point  of  my  pen.  When  I  am  feel- 
ing love,  I  am  in  that  feeling,  all  of  me.  When  I  am 
thinking,  I  am  in  that  thought.  I  am  as  indivisible  as  God. 


82  Religious  Reconstruction 

It  is  as  hard  to  locate  me  in  my  visible  frame  as  it  is  to 
locate  God  in  space.  God,  then,  is  the  life,  the  power,  the 
light  of  all  things  everywhere. 

Is  he  personal  ?  I  think  he  is,  with  my  definition  of  the 
word  "person."  One  of  the  faults  I  have  to  find  with  the 
old  doctrines  is  that  they  limit  his  personality  to  three  differ- 
ent manifestations.  Not  only  do  I  believe  that  God  is  tri- 
personal,  I  believe  that  he  is  multi-personal.  For  what 
does  personal  mean  ?  Person  is  a  word  that  originally  meant 
the  mask  of  an  actor.  When  he  put  on  a  mask  representing 
a  special  character,  he  was  that  person  for  the  time  being. 
That  was  the  origin  of  the  term.  When  God  manifests  him- 
self with  power,  wisdom,  goodness,  in  any  one  direction, 
there  he  is  personally  manifested  in  the  old  sense  of  the 
word.  But  is  he  personal  in  that  other,  grander  sense  in 
which  we  use  the  term  ?  Again,  I  believe  he  is, —  not  as  you 
are  a  person  and  I  am  a  person.  He  was  not  born.  He 
will  not  die.  He  is  not  limited,  outlined,  located,  in  space. 
The  centre  and  essence  of  the  idea  of  personality  is  con- 
sciousness. That  which  makes  me  a  person  is  that  I  am 
able  to  say  f, —  not  that  I  am  limited  or  outlined.  I  believe 
that  God  is  personal  in  this  sense  not  only,  but  that  he-is 
unspeakably  grander  than  personal.  God  is  at  least  equal 
to  all  that  is.  Whatever  there  is  in  the  universe  is  just  in  so 
far  a  manifestation  of  this  infinite  life  that  we  call  God.  He 
is  at  least  as  much,  then,  as  anything  that  is  manifested. 
The  stream  cannot  rise  higher  than  its  source.  Nothing 
comes  from  nothing.  God,  then,  is  as  much  as  whatever 
appears.  Personality  does  appear.  You  are  persons,  I 
am  a  person.  We  are  conscious.  We  think,  we  love,  we 
feel  the  infinite  life  and  power  of  the  universe.  He  is  at 
least  as  much,  then,  as  these  manifestations ;  and  it  seems 
to  me  quite  rational  for  us  to  take  a  step  beyond  that.  It  is 


Ideas  of  God,   Old  and  New  83 

a  little  presumptuous  for  us  to  think  that  we  are  measures 
of  the  universe,  that  there  can  never  have  been  a  higher  kind 
of  being  than  we  are.  There  is  no  reason  in  the  nature  of 
things  why  we  should  not  suppose  that  there  may  be  in  this 
universe  a  being  as  much  above  what  we  call  personality 
and  consciousness  as  we  are  above  the  vegetables.  God, 
then,  is  as  much  as  personal,  as  much  as  conscious,  and  I 
believe  something  that  we  cannot  imagine,  yet  is  unspeak- 
ably more  than  either  of  these. 

Now,  what  as  to  the  character  of  God,  as  we  think  of  him 
in  the  modern  world  ?  All  the  old  dualism  is  being  elimi- 
nated from  modern  thought.  We  are  getting  into  a  position 
for  solving  the  apparent  contradiction  between  light  and 
darkness,  good  and  evil,  so  that  I  think  we  are  able  to  con- 
ceive of  a  goodness  that  is  perfect  without  any  contradiction, 
without  any  shadow  or  stain. 

First,  consider  for  a  moment,  in  the  light  of  the  thought  I 
have  just  been  uttering,  what  we  have  a  right  to  think  about 
God's  character.  I  said  in  regard  to  our  nature  as  personal 
and  conscious  that  we  are  entitled  to  think  that  God  is,  at 
least,  as  much  as  we  are.  On  the  other  hand,  are  we  not, 
by  parity  of  reasoning,  entitled  to  think  that  God  is  at  least 
as  good  as  we  are  ?  All  human  goodness,  human  tender- 
ness, human  compassion,  human  love, —  what  are  they  ? 
Are  they  not  simply  phenomenal  manifestations  of  God  ? 
See  a  mother  with  her  wayward,  reckless  son.  He  is  doing 
all  he  can  to  break  her  heart.  He  repays  all  her  love  and 
tenderness  with  cruelty  and  neglect.  He  is  false  to  all  the 
nobilities  of  manhood.  The  mother  does  not  cease  to  love 
him.  She  follows  him  with  her  prayers  and  entreaties  night 
and  day ;  and,  when  at  last  she  finds  him  a  broken  wreck 
in  the  hospital,  she  devotes  herself  night  and  day  to  saving 
the  remnant  of  his  miserable  life,  and  buoying  up  his  soul 


84  Religions  Reconstruction 

with  her  deathless  hope  as  he  goes  out  towards  the  darkness 
of  an  unknown  future.  God  is  at  least  as  much  as  that 
mother's  love. 

Picture  any  scene  of  heroism  that  the  world  has  ever 
known.  God  is,  at  least,  as  much  as  that  self-sacrifice, 
devotion.  Whatever  quality  you  most  admire,  that  has  been 
most  finely  and  grandly  illustrated  by  the  life  of  any  char- 
acter in  human  life  or  that  human  fiction  ever  dreamed, — 
God  is,  at  least,  as  much  as  these.  We  are,  I  think,  in  a 
position  in  this  modern  world  to  answer  some  of  the  great 
objections  that  have  been  brought  against  the  Infinite  Un- 
known with  a  better  show  of  reason  than  they  were  able  to 
in  xthe  past.  John  Stuart  Mill,  who  lived  just  before  the 
doctrine  of  evolution  had  taken  possession  of  the  thought 
of  the  world,  said  that  God  was  manifestly  an  imperfect 
being.  He  either  lacked  power  or  goodness,  because  the 
world  was  imperfect.  If  he  did  not  wish  to  make  it  better, 
then  he  was  not  perfect  goodness.  If  he  did  wish  to  and 
could  not,  he  was  not  perfect  in  power.  But  the  theory  of 
evolution,  which  so  many  people  have  supposed  was  going 
to  be  the  wreck  and  ruin  of  religion,  makes  that  objection 
the  objection  of  a  child.  Things  are  now  simply  in  process. 
We  are  able  to  sing  with  our  whole  hearts  and  souls  the  old 
hymn  that  tells  us 

"  The  bud  may  have  a  bitter  taste, 
But  sweet  will  be  the  flower." 

Things  are  evolving,  and  no  one  has  a  right  to  judge  till 
they  are  complete. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  are,  in  the  light  of  this  doctrine,  to 
consider  this  life  of  ours  as  only  a  training  school  for  souls. 
Then,  all  the  evil,  all  the  wrong,  everything  that  has  been 
a  stumbling-block,  that  has  troubled  human  souls  in  the  past, 


Ideas  of  Gody  Old  and  New  85 

cease  to  be  a  trouble.  They  trouble  us  no  more  than  some 
hard  lesson  troubles  us  as  to  the  wisdom  or  goodness  of  the 
teacher  who  has  given  it  to  the  pupil  who  is  crying  over 
his  book. 

Just  one  point  more  concerning  the  relation  in  which 
God  stands  to  us.  The  old  gulf  that  was  supposed  to  exist, 
created  by  the  fall  of  man  and  his  sin,  is  no  longer  a  part 
of  intelligent,  cultivated  thought.  There  is  no  gulf ;  and  so 
there  is  no  need  of  any  mediator,  any  divine  being  to  be 
appointed  to  stand  between  God  and  men  for  the  work  of 
reconciling  them.  Not  that  we  are  done  with  mediators,  in 
one  sense ;  for  in  this  universe,  as  we  think  of  it  now,  all 
things  are  mediators.  God  comes  to  us  through  every  mani- 
festation of  life  and  power  and  beauty  of  which  we  can 
dream.  He  is  so  near  to  us  that  that  is  the  reason  why  we 
have  lost  him.  Suppose  you  should  tell  a  little  child  that  you 
would  show  him  the  cathedral  of  St.  Peter's.  You  take  him 
blindfolded  into  the  cathedral,  place  him  face  to  face  with 
some  one  of  the  great  pillars,  and  ask  him  to  open  his  eyes 
and  see.  The  cathedral  is  all  around  him,  glorious,  magnifi- 
cent ;  but  he  may  see  only  some  little  fragment  of  stone,  and, 
while  in  it  and  overshadowed  by  it,  be  wondering  all  the 
time  where  the  grand  sight  was  which  he  was  to  see.  So 
God  in  this  modern  world,  under  the  conception  which  we 
are  obliged  to  hold,  is  so  near  to  us  that  we  lose  him.  If  a 
fish  should  ask  to  see  the  water  by  getting  outside  the  sea, 
would  it  be  a  reasonable  request  ?  If  a  bird  should  wish  to 
fly  beyond  the  limits  of  the  atmosphere,  so  that  it  might  see 
the  air,  would  it  be  a  reasonable  request  ?  God  is  closer  to 
us  than  the  air  we  breathe,  closer  to  us  than  the  thoughts  we 
think ;  for  he  is  the  element  in  which  we  live  and  move  and 
have  our  being.  And  if  we  are  wise,  instead  of  thinking 
of  him  as  afar  off,  we  shall  bring  him  so  near  to  us  that 


86  Religions  Reconstruction 

we  shall  feel  we  are  dealing  with  him  first-hand,  every  day 
and  every  moment  of  our  lives. 

He  is  the  power  that  holds  us  up  in  his  very  arms  at  night 
while  we  sleep ;  and,  when  the  sun's  rays  come  in  at  the 
eastern  window  and  touch  our  eyelids,  it  is  as  though  God 
himself  came  in,  and  laid  his  gentle  hand  upon  his  child  and 
told  him  that  it  was  day.  All  the  commerce  and  business 
affairs  of  this  world  are  carried  on  through  immediate,  first- 
hand dealing  with  the  forces  of  God, —  not  exerted  at  a  dis- 
tance, but  God  present,  pulsing,  thrilling,  throbbing  through 
all  this  universe.  If  you  learn  a  truth,  it  is  as  though  God 
stood  close  to  you,  and  whispered  into  your  ear  one  of  his 
words.  All  the  sublimity  and  glory  of  the  world  are  the 
presence  and  outshining  of  the  divine.  If  you  hold  in  your 
hand  a  rose  and  admire  its  fragrance,  its  tinting,  its  beauty, 
God  looks  out  of  it  into  your  face ;  and  then  you  see  that  he 
is  a  being  who  loves  the  beauty  and  the  joy  of  the  world. 

And  so  we  stand  in  this  intimate,  first-hand,  closest  con- 
ceivable relationship  to  God  at  every  moment  of  our  lives. 
And,  instead  of  one  mediator,  all  the  universe,  all  its  mill- 
ions of  forms  and  manifestations,  are  just  so  many  mediators 
between  our  souls  and  the  divine.  And  he  carries  us  in  his 
heart  as  Father  ;  he  gives  us  training  as  Teacher  ;  he  comes 
to  us  to.  deliver  us  out  of  our  evils  as  Saviour.  He  is  all 
and  unspeakably  more  than  the  world  has  ever  dreamed  of 
him.  The  hate,  the  cloud,  the  shadow, —  these  have  fled 
away ;  and  the  sky  is  all  blue  and  sunny,  and  the  blue  and 
the  sunshine  are  the  smile  of  our  Father  in  heaven. 


THE  FALL  OF  MAN. 


MY  theme  this  morning  is  the  Fall  of  Man  as  the  explana- 
tion which  the  popular  theology  presents  to  us  for  the  exist- 
ence of  sin  and  evil  in  the  world. 

We  are  familiar  with  it;  and  wonders  lose  their  character, 
as  wonders  do,  through  familiarity.  But  one  of  the  most 
striking  characteristics  of  man  is  his  possession  of  the  ideal, 
—  that  man  should  be  able  to  think,  to  dream,  of  something 
better  than  he  ever  saw  or  ever  heard  of.  This,  I  say,  is 
one  of  the  most  striking  characteristics  of  man.  If  any  of 
the  lower  animals  should  be  discovered  to  be  thinking  about 
a  better  type  of  animal  life  than  they  represented,  and  we 
should  find  them  restless  in  their  desire  to  attain  and  to  fulfil 
that  type,  we  should  straightway  say  that  here  was  so  striking 
a  manifestation  of  another  kind  of  life  as  to  constitute  them 
at  once  another  species.  It  is  not  strange  that  the  individual 
man  should  dream  of  something  finer  than  he  ever  possessed, 
if  he  has  heard  of  some  other  man  as  possessing  it  or  if  he 
has  known  that  sometime,  somewhere,  it  has  existed ;  but  that 
all  men  from  the  very  first  should  have  dreamed  of  something 
better  than  they  ever  saw,  that  is  a  wonder. 

As  early  man  roused  himself  to  look  out  over  the  world,  he 
observed  everywhere  suffering,  disorder,  wrong.  The  physi- 
cal world  presented  to  his  mind  problems  which  he  could 
not  solve.  He  was  the  victim  of  what  seemed  to  him  evil 
forces,  which  he  frequently  embodied  as  demons  of  the  cold, 


88  Religions  Reconstruction 

of  the  heat,  of  hunger,  of  disease,  of  pain,  of  pestilence,  of 
earthquake,  of  death.  Disorder  and  evil  in  a  thousand  forms 
faced  him  on  every  hand.  At  the  same  time,  this  ideal  of 
his  demanded  something  better  than  he  saw;  and,  in  the  light 
of  this  ideal,  he  pronounced  all  these  things  evil.  The  prob- 
lem, then,  that  faced  him  was  to  reconcile  the  existence  of 
these  evils  with  any  faith  in  a  good  power  as  ruling  the 
world.  How  should  he  understand  the  fact  that  there  could 
be  wars,  that  there  could  be  cruelty,  that  there  could  be 
oppression,  that  there  could  be  all  the  forms  of  physical  and 
moral  evil,  and  at  the  same  time  that  the  power  that  gov- 
erned human  affairs  could  be  a  good  power  ?  And  here 
comes  in  the  wonder  of  the  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  ideal 
to  which  I  have  referred.  How  did  it  happen  that  out  of  all 
these  evils,  in  the  midst  of  them,  should  spring  this  thought 
of  the  good,  the  better,  the  perfect  ?  Surely,  there  is  some- 
thing in  this  strange  human  nature  of  ours  that  transcends 
the  realities  of  that  which  we  have  so  far  attained.  But  here 
was  the  problem.  How,  then,  did  primitive  man  attempt  to 
solve  it  ? 

At  first,  it  was  easy  enough,  in  one  way,  so  long  as  people 
believed  in  a  multiplicity  of  gods ;  for  they  could  then  sup- 
pose that  there  were  good  gods  and  bad  gods,  and  that  the 
bad  gods  were  in  conflict  with  the  good  ones,  and  that  all 
the  woes,  evils,  and  sorrows  were  the  result  of  these  evil 
beings  in  conflict  with  the  good.  It  is  curious  to  see  how 
long  even  some  of  the  most  civilized  nations  of  antiquity 
were  in  outgrowing  this  sort  of  dualism.  You  are  familiar 
with  the  Greek  legend  as  to  the  origin  of  evil.  Zeus  him- 
self, the  supreme  god,  was  looked  upon  as  at  enmity  with 
mankind.  He  did  not  love  men.  He  had  come,  by  the 
death  of  his  father,  like  a  king  inheriting  a  throne,  to  the 
supreme  rule  of  the  world.  But  he  did  not  love  the  inhabi- 


The  Fall  of  Man  89 

tants  of  this  poor  afflicted  planet.  Prometheus,  a  Titan,  is 
represented  as  having  championed  men  against  the  supreme 
power,  and  willingly,  for  the  sake  of  that  championship,  en- 
during being  chained  to  the  mountains  of  Caucasus,  while 
eagles  devoured  his  vitals  age  after  age.  Then  Zeus,  as  if 
in  revenge  upon  Prometheus  and  to  still  further  spite  man- 
kind, sends  Pandora  to  the  brother  of  Prometheus,  Epime- 
theus,  as  his  wife,  and  with  her,  in  a  box, —  which  her  curi- 
osity leads  her  to  open, —  all  the  ills  that  have  since  afflicted 
the  world.  Here,  you  see,  the  Greek  had  not  outgrown  that 
idea  of  the  duality  of  the  supreme  power, —  one  attempting 
to  injure,  the  other  attempting  to  help,  mankind. 

But  the  Hebrews,  at  the  time  that  we  refer  to,  had  risen  to 
a  conception  of  one  God,  and  only  one,  as  ruling  the  des- 
tinies of  the  earth.  The  problem  faced  them  in  a  new  form, 
presenting  features  of  new  difficulty,  that  the  dualist  and  the 
polytheist  did  not  have  to  consider.  How  was  it  possible, 
since  there  was  one  true,  eternal,  loving,  just  Power,  who 
created  and  upheld  all  things,  that  under  his  rule  such  a 
condition  of  affairs  "should  be  found?  You  will  notice  that 
even  the  Hebrews,  although  they  asserted  their  faith  in  one 
God,  had  not  quite  escaped  the  dualistic  conception  of  the 
world ;  for  their  answer  to  these  problems  was  the  story  of 
the  Garden  of  Eden  and  the  Fall  of  Man.  God  had  created 
this  beautiful  earth,  everything  was  fair,  no  evil  was  any- 
where to  be  found, —  no  death,  no  pain,  no  suffering,  no  sin; 
and  more  beautiful  than  any  other  part  of  it  was  Eden,  where 
he  had  made  a  garden.  Here  he  placed  a  perfect  Adam  and 
a  perfect  Eve.  But  there  had  long  before  this  time  been  a 
revolt  in  heaven ;  and  he  who  had  led  that  revolt  now  invades 
this  scene  of  innocence  and  peace  and  beauty,  and  works 
devastation  in  that  which  God  had  pronounced  fair  and 
good.  This,  then,  was  the  answer  that  the  Hebrew  mind 


90  Religions  Reconstruction 

gave  to  this  question,  how  the  existence  of  evil  could  consist 
with  the  goodness  of  the  supreme  God. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Fall  of  Man  is  not  to  be  ridiculed ;  it 
is  not  to  be  treated  lightly,  as  of  no  moment.  It  was,  when 
it  came  into  the  thought  and  heart  of  the  world,  a  grand 
attempt  to  solve  that  which,  even  to-day,  is  still  the  greatest 
difficulty  to  one  who  wishes  to  believe  in  God.  It  was  men 
seeking  to  do  what  Milton  sought  later  in  his  wondrous  poem 
of  Paradise  Lost, —  "  to  justify  the  ways  of  God  to  men."  The 
Hebrew  was  able  to  say,  My  God  is  all  justice,  all  truth,  all 
goodness,  all  love  :  only  this  evil  being,  Satan,  his  enemy, 
who  revolted  without  cause  from  his  just  rule  in  heaven, 
comes  upon  the  scene,  and  mars  the  glory  of  this  creation. 
This  seemed  at  that  time  to  leave  the  Creator  spotless,  and 
relieve  him  from  the  responsibility  of  the  existence  of  evil. 
And  it  has  been  held  to  relieve  him  from  this  responsi- 
bility for  ages.  Not  only  in  the  history  of  the  Hebrews, 
but  through  the  Christian  centuries,  it  has  been  put  forward 
as  the  divinely-revealed  explanation  of  the  entrance  of  sin 
into  the  world,  and  with  it  suffering  and  death. 

Now,  we  must  examine  this  a  little,  and  see  if,  in  the  light 
of  our  modern  thought,  we  can  regard  it  as  a  satisfactory- 
explanation.  I  wish  to  treat  it  with  all  respect,  with  all 
earnestness,  with  all  sincerity,  as  what  I  have  already  de- 
clared it  to  be, —  a  noble  effort  of  the  human  mind,  perhaps 
the  noblest  possible  in  that  stage  of  its  growth.  But  we  are 
brought  face  to  face,  the  moment  we  study  a  question  like 
this  deeply,  with  this  one  great  consideration.  The  moment 
we  believe  in  one  God,  and  one  God  only,  one  source  of  all 
that  is,  then  reverently  we  must  declare  him  to  be  responsi- 
ble for  whatever  exists  throughout  the  scope  of  his  wide 
creation  and  to  the  utmost  limit  of  time.  He  is  responsible. 
Nothing  can  relieve  him  of  that  responsibility,  for  all  that 


The  Fall  of  Man  91 

has  been,  all  that  is,  and  all  that  shall  be.  If  we  say  Satan 
revolted  in  heaven,  entered  the  Garden  of  Eden,  tempted 
and  overthrew  its  occupants,  what  then  ?  Where  did  Satan 
come  from  ?  How  did  he  happen  to  be  Satan  ?  Whence 
in  his  heart  the  thought  of  rebellion  and  the  purpose  to  turn 
against  his  Creator?  God  must  be  held  responsible  for 
Satan,  no  matter  whether  he  ordained  him  or  permitted 
him:  it  makes  no  difference  in  morals.  The  ultimate  Source 
and  Ruler  of  all  things  is  responsible  for  whatever  comes  to 
pass.  But  it  is  said  —  I  take  up  these  different  points  as  the 
argument  shifts  —  that  Adam  was  created  with  perfect  free- 
dom, and  that  he  had  the  choice  of  good  and  evil  freely 
placed  before  him,  so  that  sufficient  probation  was  granted 
him ;  and  he  has  no  right  to  find  any  fault  with  the  results. 
But  there  was  no  possible  fairness  about  any  such  probation 
as  the  story  tells  us  of.  Before  Adam  could  stand  freely, 
fairly,  and  make  a  choice  involving  such  issues,  he  must 
have  been  endowed  with  intellectual  power  almost  divine. 
He  must  have  been  able  to  forecast  all  the  results  of  that 
choice,  both  for  good  and  for  evil,  not  only  to  himself,  not 
only  to  his  immediate  children,  but  to  all  the  countless 
throngs  of  his  descendants  from  the  beginning  through  all 
the  ages.  He  must  have  seen  what  it  meant,  what  this 
choice  involved,  not  only  for  himself,  but  for  myriads  of 
other  souls,  before  he  could  be  competent  to  choose  whether 
he  would  go  this  way  or  that.  Even  granting  —  there  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  —  that  he  was  such  a  being  as  this ;  that 
he  had  such  power  of  comprehension ;  that  the  future  of  all 
time  was  spread  before  him, —  granting  all  that,  even  then 
there  lies  at  the  very  threshold  of  this  explanation  an  unan- 
swerable impeachment  of  the  divine  justice.  What  right 
had  Adam  to  decide  the  destiny  of  countless  millions  of 
souls  not  yet  in  existence  ?  What  right  had  God  to  confer 


92  Religions  Reconstruction 

upon  him  the  right  or  the  power  ?  I  deny  the  right  of  any 
ancestor  to  decide  my  eternal  destiny  for  me.  Mark  you, 
the  point  of  the  difficulty  lies  in  this  word  "eternal."  It 
may  be  consistent  with  justice  that  we  should  be  so  linked 
together,  this  human  race  of  ours,  that  we  should  inherit 
nine-tenths  or  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  what  we  are  from 
our  ancestors,  provided  that,  through  all  this  intricate  inter- 
working  of  each  upon  other  souls,  some  day  we  shall  come 
out  free,  self-controlled,  Godlike,  and  grand.  That  may  be 
just;  but  that  eternal  evil  for  me  should  depend  upon  the 
choice  of  any  man  in  any  age  of  the  past  is  hideous  in  its 
immorality.  And  the  saying  that  God  created  me  as  so 
related  to  any  ancestor  does  not  take  away  the  hideousness 
of  the  immorality.  It  only  lays  it  at  the  foot  of  what  can  no 
longer  be  the  great  "  white  "  throne. 

Another  answer,  or  attempt  at  answer,  that  has  often  been 
made  is  that,  though  thousands  and  millions  of  souls  will  be 
lost  as  the  result  of  the  evil,  yet  the  age  is  coming  when  the 
countless  millions  that  are  to  be  born  will  not  be  lost,  so  that 
the  final  summing  up  will  show  that  the  number  of  the  lost, 
as  compared  with  the  number  of  the  saved,  will  be  so  small 
as  hardly  to  be  worth  taking  into  account.  Men  have 
thought  they  evaded  the  difficulty  by  presenting  that  idea. 
But  consider  one  moment.  There  is  no  possible  relation  of 
justice  between  these  two  phases  of  the  question,  of  balanc- 
ing the  number  of  the  saved  and  the  number  of  the  lost. 
How  can  the  songs  of  the  millions  of  souls  in  heaven  bal- 
ance in  the  scales  of  justice  the  infinite  pain  of  one  other 
soul  that  is  lost  ?  How  can  injustice  to  this  one  be  balanced 
by  unspeakable  good  to  that  ?  There  is  no  sort  of  relation 
between  the  two  ideas :  it  is  only  confusion  of  thought  that 
ever  suggests  such  an  attempt  to  evade  the  difficulty. 

Substantially  the  same  argument  lies  again  in  another  at- 


The  Fall  of  Man  93 

tempt.  Elaborate  works  have  been  written  in  vindication  of 
this  idea  :  that  possibly  this  one  world  of  ours  is  the  only  one 
in  the  universe  where  evil  exists.  God,  as  it  were,  has  built 
this  earth  as  a  stage ;  and  here  a  grand  moral  drama  is  being 
enacted.  Uncounted  myriads  of  inhabitants,  in  other  worlds 
and  other  planets,  are  supposed  to  be  looking  on,  or  at  any 
rate  to  get  reports  of  what  is  going  on  here  ;  and  in  that  way 
they  are  being  taught  the  value  of  good  and  the  infinite  sin 
of  that  which  is  wrong.  They  are  being  taught  this  by  what 
is  going  on  here,  so  that  they  do  not  need  to  go  through  the 
process  themselves.  According  to  this  idea,  this  human  life 
of  ours  constitutes  an  eternal  object  lesson  for  the  instruction 
of  other  worlds.  Here,  again,  you  will  see  precisely  the 
same  objection  lies  against  this  as  against  the  other  idea. 
What  right  have  the  inhabitants  of  other  planets  to  learn  the 
evil  of  sin  and  the  blessedness  of  good  by  witnessing  my  soul 
torture  and  the  horrors  of  my  downward  darkening  destiny  ? 
What  right  has  infinite  Goodness  to  set  me  up  for  an  example 
to  all  the  ages, — me  no  more  guilty,  to  say  the  least,  than  any 
other  soul  arbitrarily  so  chosen  for  the  good  of  others  ?  And 
what  can  the  goodness  of  others  be  who  are  willing  so  to  be 
taught  ?  If  there  were  in  them  anything  of  the  spirit  that 
was  in  Jesus  when  he  walked  this  earth,  they  would  come 
and  drown  out  hell  with  a  flood  of  tears,  or  even  choose  to 
enter  it  themselves,  rather  than  learn  the  nature  of  evil  by 
seeing  the  torture  of  another  soul. 

Another  explanation  has  been  given,  which,  if  possible,  is 
more  immoral  than  either  of  these  ;  and  yet  it  is  that  which 
essentially  lies  at  the  bottom  of  Calvinism, —  the  whole  the- 
ory of  foreordination.  Some  one  asked  the  once  famous  Dr. 
Gardner  Spring,  of  the  Old  Brick  Church  in  New  York,  why 
he  supposed  it  was  that  God  did  not  save  more  souls  than 
he  did.  Dr.  Spring  frankly  replied  that  he  presumed  he 


94  Religious  Reconstruction 

saved  precisely  the  number  that  he  desired  to  save.  That  is 
Calvinism.  God  foreordained  that  a  certain  number  should 
be  saved,  in  illustration  of  his  mercy,  his  kindness,  his  good- 
ness. He  foreordained  that  a  certain  number  should  be 
lost,  as  an  illustration  of  his  infinite  justice.  That  is,  he  is 
declared  by  Calvinism  to  be  the  infinite,  incarnate  selfishness 
of  the  universe,  the  pleasures  and  the  pains  of  others  only 
illustrating  qualities  of  his  own  being.  Turn  it  however  we 
may,  there  is  no  possibility  of  evading  the  fact  that  the  "  Fall 
of  Man  "  to-day,  in  the  light  of  our  present  intelligence  and 
of  the  development  of  our  moral  ideal,  instead  of  removing 
the  difficulty,  only  constitutes  a  fresh  and  a  greater  one.  It 
is  a  greater  moral  difficulty  than  that  which  it  attempts  to 
explain  for  us. 

Furthermore,  we  have  learned  in  this  modern  world  that 
there  is  not  a  shred  of  reason  for  believing  that  anything  of 
the  kind  ever  happened  anyway.  It  is  curious  to  note  that 
there  are  two  parallel  traditions  running  through  the  He- 
brew. One  of  them,  and  that  the  older,  is  given  by  the 
prophets  who  spoke  and  wrote  before  the  exile,  and  who 
represent  the  oldest  part  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  first 
written,  and  who  say  nothing  whatever  of  any  Fall.  The^ 
golden  age  which  they  so  longingly  picture  is  always  in  the 
future.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  brought  out  as  the  result 
of  the  best  modern  criticism,  there  is  hardly  a  question  that 
the  early  Jews  were  ignorant  of  this  story.  They  probably 
picked  it  up  from  the  Persians  during  the  exile,  and  en- 
grafted it  upon  their  older  and  higher  thought.  And  I  have 
reminded  you  more  than  once  that  Jesus  himself,  though  he 
must  have  been  familiar  with  it,  evidently  did  not  regard  it 
as  being  of  any  importance ;  for  he  never  makes  the  slightest 
allusion  to  it.  He  never  speaks  of  man  as  being  in  a  fallen 
state,  in  the  theological  sense  of  the  word,  or  of  his  need  of 
being  saved,  in  the  theological  sense  of  the  word. 


The  Fall  of  Man  95 

Not  only  is  there  no  proof  of  the  truth  of  the  story,  but 
there  is  demonstrative  proof,  springing  out  of  our  knowledge 
of  the  antiquity  of  the  world  and  the  origin  and  nature  of 
man,  of  the  precise  contrary.  If  we  are  intelligent,  we  no 
longer  talk  about  the  Fall  of  Man.  We  talk  rather  of  the  rise 
of  man.  For,  while  there  is  no  proof  that  he  has  ever  fallen, 
there  is  a  large  amount  of  proof,  amounting  to  practical  dem- 
onstration, that  he  has  been  rising  from  the  very  beginning, 
and  that  he  is  rising  still  to-day.  We  turn  the  problem  com- 
pletely round  in  the  light  of  our  modern  knowledge ;  and, 
instead  of  talking  about  the  origin  of  evil,  we  talk  about  the 
origin  of  good, —  not  how  did  evil,  as  though  it  were  a  thing, 
come  into  the  world,  but  how,  out  of  the  primeval  condition 
of  things,  did  it  come  to  be  that  man  was  developed  into 
a  moral  being.  That  is  the  way  we  treat  the  problem 
to-day. 

Consider  for  a  moment.  At  first,  the  whole  world  was 
only  the  scene  of  the  gigantic  play  of  physical  forces.  There 
was  no  life  anywhere  on  the  planet.  Then  from  the  ooze  of 
the  primeval  ocean  and  on  its  shores  appeared  the  lowest 
forms  of  life  ;  and  age  after  age  these  forms  developed,  ever 
rising,  till  animal  life  covered  all  the  earth,  and  bird  life  filled 
the  sky.  But  there  is  nothing  to  be  thought  of  as  moral  on 
the  face  of  the  earth.  All  this  gigantic  play  of  animal  powers 
and  passions ;  what  now,  if  it  were  visible  on  the  part  of  man, 
would  be  called  cruelty,  that  scene  of  rapine  which  Tenny- 
son speaks  of  when  he  talks  of  nature  being  "  red  in  tooth 
and  claw,"  — all  this  existed,  indeed;  but  we  may  not  think 
that  the  world  was  all  rapine.  If  we  look  dispassionately 
over  the  extent  of  the  animal  world  to-day,  we  shall  be  com- 
pelled to  treat  cruelty  and  ferocity  as  merely  incidental. 
The  larger  part  of  the  life  that  flies  in  the  air  and  swims  in 
the  sea  and  roams  through  the  forest,  if  we  are  frank  and 


96  Religious  Reconstruction 

honest,  we  must  consider  to  be  happy  animal  life,  thrilling 
with  all  the  enjoyment  of  which  it  possesses  the  capacity.  If 
I  had  time,  I  think  I  could  show  you  clearly  that  the  process 
of  suffering  through  which  it  passes  on  its  way  to  death  is 
less  under  the  present  condition  of  things  than  it  might  be 
under  some  other  that  has  been  fancied  as  an  improvement 
on  it. 

After  the  animal  world  there  appears  man,  and  with  man 
for  the  first  time  the  moral  ideal,  the  existence  of  this  dream 
of  the  better,  this  contrast  of  himself  with  his  dream,  and 
his  condemnation  of  himself  because  he  does  not  fulfil  the 
dream.  Morality,  then,  is  born  with  man  on  this  planet,  out 
of  this  crude,  pre-existing  condition  of  things, —  born  naturally 
as  the  companion  of  sin.  There  is  a  strange  thing  about 
this,  and  yet  a  perfectly  rational  thing,  if  we  look  at  it  with 
candor  and  care. 

Did  you  ever  think  that  in  a  race  of  beings  possessing 
no  ideal,  dreaming  of  nothing  better  than  themselves,  and 
with  no  capacity  for  progress,  there  could  be  no  sin  ?  Sin 
means  the  gulf  between  the  actual  and  the  ideal.  It  means 
condemnation  of  ourselves  as  coming  short  of  the  dream. 
Take  that  away,  and  there  could  be  no  sin.  The  existence, 
then,  of  sin,  the  existence  of  man's  consciousness  of  it,  his 
desire  to  escape  from  it  and  rise  up  into  better  conditions, — 
this  is  the  grandest,  the  most  hopeful  fact  in  human  nature. 
Instead,  then,  of  the  consciousness  of  sin  being  a  sign  of 
the  Fall,  it  is  a  sign,  on  the  other  hand, —  the  absolutely 
necessary  accompaniment  of  the  fact, —  of  the  possibility  of 
rising.  And  by  as  much  as  man  does  rise  higher  and  higher, 
so  ever  deeper  and  deeper  grows  his  consciousness  of  sin. 
So  ever  does  he  become  more  sensitive  to  it,  so  ever  does 
he  bear  it  with  less  and  less  patience,  so  ever  does  he  seek 
more  ardently  to  escape  from  it.  This  deepening  of  the 


The  Fall  of  Man 


consciousness  of  sin  then,  instead  of  its  proving  that  man 
is  all  wrong,  proves  that  he  is  all  right. 

One  grand  testimony  to  the  moral  sanity  and  healthful- 
ness  of  this  race  lies  in  the  fact  that  never,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  world,  has  any  man  been  canonized  by  the 
popular  heart  as  a  hero  and  helper  to  the  world  except  he 
were,  in  the  light  of  the  best  ideal  that  could  be  attained  at 
the  time,  a  good  man.  There  are  no  evil  saints.  That 
which  men  have  worshipped,  that  which  they  have  conse- 
crated, that  which  they  have  bowed  down  to,  that  which  they 
have  loved,  that  which  they  have  clasped  to  their  hearts,  has 
always  been  the  good.  And  yet  men  talk  about  human 
nature  being  essentially  evil,  about  men  having  no  natural 
taste  for  goodness  or  tendency  towards  it.  It  has  been  the 
business  of  the  old  theologians  for  ages  to  prove  to  men 
over  and  over  again  how  bad  they  were,  in  order  that  they 
might  induce  them  to  submit  to  their  methods  of  being 
saved.  The  majority  of  men  are  not  bad.  The  great 
masses  of  men  the  world  over,  in  all  time,  according  to  the 
light  they  have  had,  have  done  so  grandly  well  that  I  find 
myself,  as  I  read  history  and  study  human  progress,  feeling 
like  bowing  down  to  them  in  reverence.  The  existence  of 
sin,  then,  —  the  existence  of  this  consciousness  of  sin,  the 
existence  of  this  moral  ideal  that  forever  outruns  us,  —  is  that 
which  proves  the  divinity  within  us,  that  there  is  a  possi- 
bility of  rising  towards  that  which  has  not  yet  been  attained. 

Note,  in  ar  other  way,  how  this  fact  of  sin  springs  out  of 
the  fact  of  human  progress.  There  have  been  three  stages, 
roughly  speaking,  in  human  advance.  In  the  lower  levels 
of  human  life,  in  the  early,  primitive  ages  of  the  world, 
brute  force  was  dominant,  the  most  important  force  there 
was.  The  man  who  was  a  muscular  king  was  the  mighti- 
est and  most  important,  and  might,  for  the  time  being,  be 


98  Religions  Reconstruction 

the  best  man  of  his  age.  But,  after  a  while,  the  force  of 
evolution  seems  to  pass  by  the  physical.  These  physical 
forms  of  ours  have  not  been  evolved  to  so  high  an  extent  as 
have  some  of  those  that  we  speak  of  as  belonging  to  the 
animal  world.  The  force  of  evolution  passed  by  our  bodies, 
and  there  is  not  much  probability  of  our  being  developed 
farther  physically.  It  seized  the  brain,  and  is  working 
towards  the  evolution  of  man's  mental  power.  At  first,  it 
was  merely  the  force  of  cunning,  keenness,  sharpness,  out- 
witting the  foes  of  those  primitive  times, —  surpassing  them, 
not  by  superior  muscular  power,  but  by  superior  cunning. 
This  made  man  inventive.  With  bare  hands,  possessing  no 
claws,  no  weapons  of  self-defence,  in  process  of  time  he  tore 
the  limb  from  the  tree,  sharpened  it  into  a  spear,  invented 
the  bow  and  arrow ;  and  so  cunning  and  brain  power  be- 
came master  of  the  world. 

The  next  step  hastens  on  the  development  of  man  as  a 
moral  being.  Until  to-day,  even  in  the  politics  of  Europe, 
though  the  nations  are  armed  to  the  teeth  and  face  each 
other  like  thirsty  tigers,  ready  to  suck  each  other's  blood, 
—  even  here  there  is  a  dominant  moral  power,  mightier  than 
their  armaments.  There  is  no  nation  in  Europe  to-day  that 
dares  transgress,  beyond  certain  limits,  the  moral  laws  of  its 
relation  to  other  nations,  lest  all  the  rest  of  the  civilized 
world  be  on  its  back.  The  moral  power  is  to-day  supreme. 
Note  what  comes,  then.  As  man  progresses,  as  the  human 
race  goes  on,  it  is  like  an  army  on  the  march.  There  is 
always  a  vanguard,  always  a  main  body,  always  the  strag- 
glers and  camp  followers.  That  which  was  right  enough 
on  a  lower  physical  plane  becomes  out  of  place  and  wrong 
on  a  higher  intellectual  plane ;  and  that  which  was  right 
enough  on  the  intellectual  level  becomes  relatively  wrong  on 
the  higher  moral  level  of  human  nature. 


The  Fall  of  Man  99 

As  an  illustration  of  what  I  mean,  war  was  right  once.  It 
was  the  best  thing  the  people  knew  of  at  the  time ;  but  war 
to-day  is  recognized  as  an  evil,  to  be  permitted  only  in  case 
of  absolute  necessity,  as  a  choice  between  two  evils,  one  of 
which  must  be  taken.  Polygamy  was  once  right.  To-day,  it 
is  wrong.  Slavery  was  once  right,  relatively  to  the  time. 
To-day,  the  civilized  sense  of  the  world  condemns  it  as,  what 
John  Wesley  called  it,  "  the  sum  of  all  villanies."  Thus,  as 
humanity  rises,  things  which  were  relatively  right  on  the 
lower  plane  become  out  of  place  and  wrong  on  the  higher 
plane,  so  that  the  very  evils  of  our  civilized  world  as  we  go 
on  are  actually  created  by  our  progress.  There  is  no  possi- 
bility of  such  a  thing  as  sin  or  wrong  in  the  world,  in  itself. 
The  science  of  the  world  and  the  philosophy  of  the  world 
used  to  be  full  of  metaphysical  entities.  Electricity,  for  ex- 
ample, used  to  be  supposed  to  be  a  thing.  People  still  talk 
about  the  "  electric  fluid  "  or  the  "  electric  current."  Heat 
was  a  thing ;  and  the  old  science  had  a  great  deal  to  say  of 
phlogiston,  a  sort  of  principle  or  essence  of  heat.  Light  was 
another  entity ;  force  was  another.  But  now  we  are  by  all 
that.  We  know  that  heat,  light,  electricity,  all  these  tremen- 
dous forces  of  the  world,  are  only  modes  of  motion,  modes 
of  activity.  So  good  is  not  a  thing.  Evil  is  not  a  thing. 
There  is  no  entity  called  sin  that  got  into  this  world  after  it 
was  created.  Good, —  what  is  it  ?  It  is  that  type  of  thought, 
feeling,  action,  which  helps  somebody.  What  is  evil  ?  It  is 
that  type  of  thought,  that  type  of  feeling,  that  type  of  action, 
which  injures,  takes  away  from  the  sum  total  of  the  welfare 
and  happiness  of  mankind.  There  is  no  such  thing,  then,  as 
good  or  evil  in  itself. 

The  only  possible  way  by  which  men  can  do  wrong  is  by 
one  of  these  three  ways.  Evil  must  be  the  perversion  of 
something  which  is  right,  the  perverted  use  of  any  faculty 


IOO  Religions  Reconstruction 

or  power  which  might  as  well  be  used  in  the  right  direction ; 
the  excessive  use  of  some  power  or  faculty  which  in  another 
use  might  be  right ;  or  something  which  might  be  right  some- 
where else,  but  which  is  misplaced. 

The  daisy,  for  example,  is  a  flower  which  all  poets  love. 
But,  when  it  gets  among  the  wheat,  the  farmers  call  it  white- 
weed ;  and  it  is  one  of  the  greatest  nuisances  for  one  who 
has  to  contend  against  it.  A  thousand  things,  beautiful 
and  good  in  their  places,  become  evil  when  misplaced,  when 
perverted,  or  when  carried  to  excess. 

I  have  in  my  hand  a  list  of  the  seven  deadly  sins  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  They  are  pride,  idleness,  envy,  murder, 
covetousness,  lust,  gluttony.  There  is  not  a  single  one  of 
them  that  does  not  spring  out  of,  or  have  its  root  in,  some- 
thing which  is  not  only  innocent,  but  which  may  be  grandly 
good.  Pride  is  only  a  perverted  and  excessive  self-respect. 
A  right  and  manly  pride  belongs  to  any  true  manhood. 
Idleness  —  whether  it  is  right  or  wrong  depends  on  circum- 
stances. Envy  is  only  the  admiration  of  something  pos- 
sessed by  another  person,  turned  into  spite  against  him  be- 
cause he  possesses  it  and  we  do  not.  Covetousness  is  what 
might  be  right  otherwise,  a  desire  to  possess  something  held 
by  another,  perverted  into  a  willingness  to  get  it  by  harming 
him.  Lust  springs  out  of  that  which  is  the  root  of  all  the 
fairest  and  most  beautiful  things  of  human  life.  Gluttony 
is  only  an  excess  of  that  which  is  necessary  to  human  ex- 
istence. 

And  now  let  me  give  you  still  further  illustrations  of 
this  threefold  classification  of  wrong-doing  that  I  have 
referred  to. 

Take,  as  an  illustration,  the  evils  of  things  misplaced. 
Charity,  I  will  say  in  passing,  may  be  an  evil,  springing 
out  of  ever  so  generous  a  heart.  If  it  is  misplaced,  it  may 


The  Fall  of  Man  101 

only  lead  to  the  cultivation  of  mendicancy  instead  of  dimin- 
ishing it. 

As  a  concrete  illustration,  take  a  figure  like  John  L.  Sulli- 
van, who  is  a  magnificent  animal.  The  only  trouble  with 
him  is  that  he  is  wholly  out  of  place.  Put  him  back  a  few 
thousand  years,  and  he  has  in  him  the  stuff  of  which  to  make 
a  hero,  the  subject  of  some  epic.  Suppose  he  had  led  a 
crusade  for  the  recovery  of  the  tomb  of  Jesus  from  the  hands 
of  the  infidels  :  he  might  have  figured  to-day  in  the  calendar 
of  saints.  This  mighty  physical  prowess  and  power,  in  the 
days  when  muscle  was  at  the  front,  would  have  made  him  a 
natural  leader.  The  only  difficulty  is  that  there  is  now  no 
legitimate  call  for  this  superfluity  of  muscle.  Brain  and 
moral  power  have  superseded  it.  It  is  of  no  use.  In  war, 
he  could  not  handle  a  rifle  any  better  than  a  smaller  man, 
and  would  only  make  a  larger  target  for  the  enemy.  He  is 
a  survival  from  a  time  when  the  animal  was  supreme ;  and 
he  now,  as  the  poet  says,  "  lags  superfluous  on  the  stage." 

Take  a  case  like  that  of  Daniel  Webster,  who  sacrificed 
his  moral  ideal  to  his  ambition.  Ambition  is  right,  though 
Milton  calls  fame  "that  last  infirmity  of  noble  mind."  It 
belongs  to  noble  minds ;  and  it  is  only  evil  when  it  is  turned 
in  the  wrong  direction  or  when  one  is  willing  to  sacrifice 
something  noble  to  attain  it.  Look  at  Napoleon  as  another 
instance. 

Take  an  illustration  of  that  which  is  right  in  one  way,  but 
may  be  carried  to  excess.  You  know  my  opinion,  that  the 
accumulation  of  money  and  the  aggregation  of  capital  lie  at 
the  very  root  of  our  best  civilization.  Suppose  a  man,  con- 
scious of  that  fact,  devotes  himself  to  money-making,  turns 
all  his  powers  in  that  direction,  and  succeeds.  But  he  sacri- 
fices everything  else  to  that ;  and  he  carries  it  so  far  that  he 
loses  sight  of  the  rights  of  others,  loses  sight  of  the  wel- 


IO2  Religious  Reconstruction 

fare  of  the  poor,  whom  he  grinds  down  by  diminishing  their 
wages  that  he  may  add  to  his  own  accumulation.  He  carries 
this  quality,  this  power,  which  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the 
civilization  of  the  world,  to  excess;  and  it  becomes  a  tre- 
mendous evil,  dwarfing  his  own  soul  and  injuring  thousands 
of  victims.  But  the  faculty  is  not  only  right,  it  is  necessary 
to  the  growth  of  the  world. 

And  so,  in  all  directions,  evil  is  the  sign  of  the  growth,  of 
the  progress,  of  man ;  and  the  only  thing  that  we  need  to  do, 
in  order  to  "  vindicate  the  ways  of  God  to  man,"  is  to  see, 
beyond  this  process  of  training  through  experience,  where  evil 
is  necessary  to  the  cultivation  of  a  moral,  self-possessed,  self- 
controlled  soul, —  to  see  that  evil,  at  least  in  the  case  of  every 
individual  soul,  is  a  transient  phase  of  its  development  that 
it  passes  through  and  out  of.  Evil  may  exist  forever,  and 
be  no  impeachment  of  God's  goodness.  It  may  exist  on  this 
planet  forever,  as  a  school-house  might  exist  forever,  if  you 
do  not  keep  the  pupils  always  in  it.  Only  let  them  graduate 
when  they  are  ready.  Let  individual  souls  pass  through  the 
curriculum,  and  emerge  grandly  developed  and  in  the  image 
of  God. 


REDEMPTION  OR  EDUCATION? 


ALTHOUGH  we  have  come  to  the  conclusion,  as  the  result 
of  our  previous  studies,  that  man  is  not  in  a  fallen  condition, 
not  under  the  curse  and  wrath  of  God,  still  we  must  assume 
that  theory,  or  keep  it  in  mind  rather,  for  the  purpose  that 
we  have  in  view  this  morning,  at  least  during  the  opening 
part  of  our  discussion.  In  order  that  we  may  understand 
the  scheme  of  redemption  that  has  been  proposed  as  a  means 
of  delivering  men  from  this  condition,  we  must  of  course 
have  this  condition  in  mind. 

This  plan  of  redemption  has  been  held  as  a  signal  illustra- 
tion both  of  the  love  and  of  the  wisdom  of  God ;  and  I  shall 
ask  you  to  look  at  it  with  me  for  a  little  while  from  these  two 
points  of  view, —  first,  as  illustrating  the  supposed  love  of  God 
for  fallen  men. 

You  will  need  to  note,  what  I  have  already  pointed  out 
and  made  clear  to  you,  that,  in  order  to  make  this  view'in  the 
least  degree  reasonable,  we  must  assume  a  dualistic  concep- 
tion of  the  governing  force  of  this  world.  If  God  is  not  to 
be  held  responsible  in  any  degree  for  the  entrance  of  sin  into 
the  world;  if  he  is  not  responsible  for  the  fallen  condition  of 
the  race ;  if  he  is  not  responsible  for  the  loss  and  for  the 
hopeless  destiny  that  overhang  the  larger  part  of  all  souls, — 
then,  indeed,  we  may  reasonably  talk  about  the  love  and 
grace  that  devised  a  plan  by  which  at  least  some  of  them  may 
be  saved.  But,  in  order  that  we  may  hold  this  view,  we  must 


IO4  Religions  Reconstruction 

suppose  that  there  existed  some  other  power  in  the  universe, 
some  power,  evil  in  nature  and  in  purpose,  that,  in  spite  of 
God,  wrought  this  ruin  and  devastation;  and  this  means 
something  besides  a  perfect,  clear,  consistent  unity  in  the 
nature  of  God  and  his  government  of  the  world.  For,  if  he  be 
the  one,  only,  sole  source  of  all  that  ever  has  been,  of  all  that 
is,  and  of  all  that  ever  shall  be,  then  we  must,  as  I  have 
already  told  you,  hold  him  responsible  for  the  ruin  as  well  as 
for  the  salvation. 

Let  me  intimate  to  you  what  I  think  of  this  theory  of  his 
love  and  mercy  by  one  or  two  illustrations. 

Suppose  a  king  should  colonize  an  island  a  long  way  from 
the  borders  of  his  own  kingdom;  that  he  should  send  a  cer- 
tain number  of  his  subjects  there,  and  leave  them  to  develop 
and  populate  this  island.  Suppose  he  should  know  before- 
hand that  in  the  course  of  years  diseases  of  all  sorts  would 
rise  and  spread  their  devastation  among  these  inhabitants,  or 
that  a  great  famine  would  come  upon  them, —  a  famine  that 
they  would  be  powerless  to  oppose  or  escape, —  and  that  by 
its  ravages  the  larger  number  of  the  people  would  in  time 
be  destroyed ;  yet  he  should  send  them.  Suppose  that  after 
this  famine  came  he  allowed  months  to  pass,  till  great  num- 
bers had  perished,  and  then  should  organize  an  expedition  of 
relief,  sending  ships  to  carry  food  to  those  that  were  perish- 
ing; that  he  should  be  willing  to  rescue  those  that  desired  to 
return,  or  should  at  least  allow  a  certain  number  of  them  to 
be  fed,  to  be  saved,  to  be  carried  back  to  their  homes  once 
more,  if  they  so  desired. 

Suppose,  on  the  other  hand,  that  he  should  leave  some 
in  ignorance  that  any  food  or  supplies  had  been  sent,  and 
should  suffer  them  to  die  lingering  and  painful  deaths  one 
after  another.  Suppose  he  should  select  only  a  few  to  whom 
the  offer  of  return  might  be  made,  and  should  leave  the 


Redemption  or  Education  ?  105 

larger  number  of  them  in  entire  ignorance  of  any  such 
scheme  of  deliverance  having  been  devised.  What  would 
you  say  of  such  a  thing  as  this  ?  How  would  you  character- 
ize such  a  course  of  action,  such  a  method  of  government, 
such  a  way  of  dealing  with  his  subjects,  on  the  part  of  a 
human  king?  Instead  of  praising  him  for  his  mercy  to  a 
few,  instead  of  praising  him  for  sending  out  his  expedition 
of  relief,  for  saving  a  few  from  dying  of  hunger,  instead  of 
praising  him  for  offering  that  at  least  a  few  may  return  if 
they  so  choose,  would  you  not  say  that  his  course  of  conduct 
from  beginning  to  end,  in  spite  of  this  temporary  and  local 
mercy,  was  unspeakably  infamous  ?  If  the  island  had  been 
colonized  by  some  other  king,  if  these  people  had  been  no 
subjects  of  his,  if  he  had  been  in  no  sense  responsible  for 
their  being  there  or  for  the  condition  into  which  they  had 
fallen,  and  then  he  had  organized  an  expedition  for  their 
salvation,  though  he  had  succeeded  in  saving  only  a  few, 
then  we  would  exhaust  the  resources  of  language  in  praising 
him  for  his  care,  his  loving-kindness,  his  tender  mercy. 

But  on  the  theory  that  has  been  offered  us,  the  one  that 
is  supposed  by  all  the  terms  of  the  scheme,  the  salvation 
that  is  still  printed  in  the  popular  creeds  of  the  churches, 
God  is  responsible  from  first  to  last.  He  created  this  world 
and  its  inhabitants,  and  placed  them  here  and  knew  what 
was  to  be.  Even  by  the  terms  of  common  law  as  we  deal 
with  our  fellow-citizens  in  this  world, —  and  our  standards 
are  none  too  clear  and  none  too  high, —  we  hold  any  man 
responsible  for  causes  which  he  sets  in  motion,  even  though 
he  do  not  intend  the  result.  If  a  man  chooses  to  set  fire 
to  his  own  house,  we  may  question  his  moral  right  to  do  it, — 
to  destroy  any  property  that  is  the  result  of  the  world's 
effort  to  deliver  itself  from  want  and  suffering ;  but  he  at 
least  has  a  legal  right  to  burn  his  own  house  to  the  ground, 


io6  Religious  Reconstruction 

if  he  chooses.  But  if,  as  the  result  of  this  attempt,  he  burns 
his  neighbor's,  we  hold  him  responsible,  though  he  did  not 
intend  it.  Shall  we  apply  a  less  lofty  standard  of  justice  to 
God  than  we  apply  to  our  fellow-men  ?  May  we  not  rever- 
ently ask  in  the  words  of  Scripture,  Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all 
the  earth  do  right  ? 

It  seems  to  me,  then,  that  all  this  talk  of  mercy,  tender- 
ness, loving-kindness,  of  self-sacrificing  devotion  to  the  wants, 
the  sorrows,  the  sufferings  of  men,  is  entirely  out  of  place. 
Rather  must  we  feel  our  hearts  burn  within  us  with  indigna- 
tion at  such  a  conception  of  God  as  is  offered  to  us.  And, 
by  as  much  as  we  are  true  and  noble  men,  we  shall  find  it 
not  only  impossible  to  worship  such  a  being,  but  to  believe 
that  he  exists.  That  he  foreordained,  created,  intended  all 
this  it  is  impossible  that  we  should  believe. 

I  remember  one  illustration  bearing  on  this  point  that  old 
Prof.  Park,  of  Andover,  used  to  offer  as  an  attempt  to  relieve 
God  from  this  sort  of  responsibility.  He  said :  Suppose  a 
man  has  hired  a  servant,  and  during  some  cold  winter  night 
some  member  of  the  family  is  suddenly  taken  ill.  He  wakes 
up  this  servant,  and  orders  him  to  go  for  a  physician ;  but 
the  servant,  angry  at  being  so  disturbed  and  being  called' 
upon  to  render  such  an  unusual  service,  indulges  in  the 
wickedness  of  profanity  and  wrath.  The  professor  used 
complacently  to  ask,  Is  the  man  who  simply  requires  this 
duty,  who  demands  this  service,  on  the  part  of  one  who  is 
bound  to  be  his  servant, —  is  he  responsible  for  the  sin  which 
the  servant  incidentally  commits,  because  the  service  is  dis- 
agreeable to  him  ?  And  I  remember  that  one  of  the  stu- 
dents, on  a  certain  occasion,  raised  the  question,  which 
neither  the  professor  nor  any  other  has  ever  answered,  and 
which  cannot  be  answered :  But  suppose  the  man  had  cre- 
ated the  servant,  and  had  endowed  him  with  such  a  nature 


Redemption  or  Education  f  107 

and  disposition  that  he  knew  when  he  created  him  that,  if 
he  placed  him  in  this  peculiar  circumstance,  he  would  in- 
evitably commit  this  sin ;  then  what  ?  The  old  theologians 
told  us  that  God  did  not  foreordain  the  sin,  but  that  he  so 
created  and  so  circumstanced  man  that  he  would  inevitably 
fall  when  the  temptation  was  presented  to  him.  Can  any  one 
in  morals  draw  a  line  of  distinction,  so  that  God  shall  be 
relieved  of  the  responsibility  in  the  one  case  any  more  than 
in  the  other?  So  much  for  the  supposed  love  and  mercy 
embodied  in  this  scheme  of  redemption. 

Let  us  now  look  at  its  wisdom.  I  propose  to  outline  a  few 
of  the  many  theories  of  the  atonement  that  have  been  held, 
that  you  may  see  under  what  plan  it  is  supposed  God  has 
arranged  to  redeem  man  from  his  lost  and  fallen  condition. 

You  are  well  aware  that  it  is  supposed  to  be  the  result  of 
the  birth  and  life  and  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ,  who, 
on  this  supposition,  is  the  second  person  in  the  eternal  trinity. 
But  how  is  this  supposed  to  produce  the  result  ?  There  have 
been  a  great  many  theories  held.  I  shall  only  call  your  at- 
tention to  three  or  four  of  the  most  important,  and  ask  you 
to  see  if  you  can  discern  the  wisdom  or  the  justice  supposed 
to  be  here  displayed. 

At  first,  and  for  a  great  many  years,  for  some  centuries  at 
least,  the  popular  theory  was  something  like  this  :  Satan  was 
supposed  to  have  become  the  rightful  ruler  of  humanity. 
He  had  incited  man  to  rebellion,  and  had  gained  control  of 
this  earthly  province  of  God's  kingdom.  According  to  the 
theories  of  government  that  used  to  be  held,  any  king  who 
was  powerful  enough  to  conquer  and  to  hold  another  prov- 
ince was  supposed  to  be  its  rightful  possessor ;  for  might 
and  right  in  those  days  were  interchangeable  terms.  Under 
this  theory  of  the  atonement,  Satan  was  the  rightful  owner 
and  ruler  of  all  human  souls.  It  was  supposed,  then,  that 


io8  Religious  Reconstruction 

God  entered  into  a  sort  of  bargain  with  Satan,  as  though  he 
were  an  adversary  with  whom  he  could  treat,  and  offered  him 
the  sufferings  and  death  of  Jesus  in  exchange  for  so  many  of 
the  souls  of  this  earthly  province  as  were  thus  to  be  saved. 
So  that  Jesus'  death  was  simply  a  price  paid  to  Satan  for  the 
deliverance  of  a  certain  number  of  his  subjects.  When 
Jesus  descended  into  hell,  after  his  crucifixion,  it  was  sup- 
posed by  Satan  that  he  had  gained  eternal  possession  of  this 
superior  being,  who  used  to  be  his  old  adversary  in  heaven. 
For  on  that  theory  the  conflict  in  heaven,  during  the  time  of 
the  rebellion  there,  was  between  Jesus,  the  leader  on  one 
side,  and  Satan,  the  leader  on  the  other.  Satan  supposed 
that  he  had  Jesus  in  his  grasp,  so  that  he  could  keep  him ; 
and  he  was  willing,  for  this  dear  revenge,  to  release  a  cer- 
tain number  of  the  souls  of  men  that  had  come  into  his  pos- 
session. But  Satan  was  deceived  as  to  the  nature  of  Jesus. 
He  supposed  him  to  be  a  created  being.  He  did  not  know 
that  he  was  divine.  But  since  he  was  divine,  was  a  part  of 
the  being  of  God  himself,  it  was  impossible,  as  the  New  Tes- 
tament says,  "  that  he  should  be  holden  of  death."  It  was 
impossible  that  any  power  of  the  adversary  should  keep  him. 
So,  at  the  end  of  the  three  days,  he  broke  loose  from  the 
bondage  in  which  he  had  been  kept,  and  ascended  on  high, 
leading  in  his  train  a  large  number  of  those  who  had  been 
kept  in  prison  since  their  death,  under  the  old  dispensation. 
This  is  one  theory. 

After  this  came  the  great  theory  that  has  been  called  the 
expiatory  theory  of  the  atonement.  It  was  supposed  that  it 
was  impossible  for  God  to  forgive  unless  there  was  a  certain 
amount  of  suffering  paid  on  the  part  of  somebody,  an  equiva- 
lent for  the  suffering  that  would  have  been  endured  by  the 
souls  of  men,  supposing  they  had  been  lost  through  all  eter- 
nity. God  was  regarded  as  a  being  who  possessed  an  attri- 


Redemption  or  Education  ?  109 

bute  called  justice,  that  must  in  this  way  be  satisfied  before 
he  could  forgive  anybody.  Jesus,  then,  being  infinite,  a  part 
of  God  himself,  and  capable  therefore  of  infinite  suffering, 
even  in  a  limited  time,  was  supposed  to  have  gone  through 
so  much  of  pain  and  sorrow  while  he  was  in  the  lower  regions 
as  to  precisely  offset  all  the  pain  that  all  the  lost  would  have 
suffered  through  eternity, —  that  is,  so  many  of  them  as  God 
had  decided  to  save.  This  is  the  theory  that  is  still  sung 
in  Moody  and  Sankey  meetings  :  "  Jesus  died  and  paid  it  all, 
all  the  debt  I  owe." 

But  think  for  a  moment :  what  kind  of  a  conception  of  jus- 
tice could  men  hold  who  supposed  that  so  much  wrong  could 
be  measured  or  weighed  against  just  so  much  pain,  and  that 
when  somebody  has  suffered  just  this  amount  of  pain,  no 
matter  whether  it  is  the  wrong-doer  or  not,  he  can  be  right- 
eously set  free  ? 

In  the  first  place,  to  the  enlightened  conscience  and  clear 
thought  there  is  no  sort  of  relation  between  sin  on  the  one 
hand  and  suffering  on  the  other,  even  though  it  be  the  suf- 
fering of  the  guilty  one.  Suppose  a  man  has  committed  a 
murder  :  does  exacting  so  much  pain  from  him  take  away  the 
fact  of  the  murder  ?  Does  it  relieve  the  broken  hearts  of  the 
friends  ?  Does  it  change  or  lessen  one  iota  of  the  guilt  ?  It 
does  not  touch  it :  it  stands  in  no  sort  of  rational  or  vital 
relation  with  it  in  any  way  whatever.  But  how  much  worse 
is  the  case  when  the  pain  is  exacted  from  some  one  who  has 
not  committed  the  murder  !  And  what  can  one  think  of  what 
is  called  the  Supreme  Justice  of  the  universe  being  willing  to 
take,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  sins  of  man,  the  suffering  of 
anybody  who  will  voluntarily  bear  it  ? 

The  next  theory  is  what  has  been  called  the  governmental 
theory  of  the  atonement.  This  is  the  one  that  has  been  for 
years  a  part  of  our  New  England  theology,  that  used  to  be 


no  Religious  Reconstruction 

taught  at  And  over  before  the  new  movement  there.  It  is  the 
theory  of  Prof.  Park.  It  holds  that  God,  as  moral  governor 
of  the  world,  cannot  possibly  overlook  wrong-doing,  that  he 
must  make  an  example  of  the  sinner,  that  there  is  something 
more  important  even  than  saving  any  particular  sinner ;  and 
that  is,  letting  the  universe  know  that  God's  laws  cannot  be 
broken  with  impunity.  The  government  of  God  is  degraded 
by  comparing  it  with  our  common  human  devices.  If  the 
authorities  of  the  city  of  Boston  should  let  criminals  run 
loose  without  attempting  to  restrain  them,  anarchy  and  chaos 
would  be  the  result.  So  they  say  that  God  is  reduced  to 
such  methods  as  this,  to  maintain  the  supremacy  of  his  own 
kingdom.  One  favorite  illustration  of  Prof.  Park  as  to  the 
way  in  which  God  upheld  his  justice  is  this.  He  used  to  tell 
the  story  of  a  king  who  made  a  certain  law,  and  said  that,  if 
anybody  broke  that  law,  both  his  eyes  should  be  put  out  as  a 
penalty.  The  first  one  to  break  the  law  was  his  own  son. 
The  king  must  maintain  the  supremacy  of  his  own  law,  or  his 
government  would  be  held  in  contempt.  But  he  did  not  like 
to  make  his  own  son  totally  blind.  So  he  devised  a  method 
by  which  he  could  escape  this  penalty  by  having  one  of  his 
son's  eyes  put  out,  and  one  of  his  own.  So  the  law  was  supn 
posed  to  be  upheld  and  justice  to  be  maintained.  But  what 
kind  of  justice  is  that  which,  for  the  breach  of  a  certain  law, 
demands  that  two  eyes  shall  be  paid  as  a  penalty,  but  that  is 
not  very  particular  as  to  whose  they  are,  provided  the  number 
is  maintained  ?  To  such  devices  as  this,  that  seem  pitiful 
that  seem  intellectually  contemptible,  that  seem  morally  infa- 
mous, has  popular  theology  been  reduced,  in  order  to  uphold 
this  scheme  for  the  redemption  of  mankind  from  sin. 

Another  theory  I  must  touch  upon,  because  it  shows  such 
development  on  the  part  of  the  conscience  of  the  world,  such 
a  growth  of  the  tenderness  of  the  human  heart,  such  a  shad- 


Redemption  or  Education  ?  1 1 1 

ing  off  towards  that  simple  and  pure  naturalism  which  must 
come  by  and  by.  It  goes  by  the  name  of  Dr.  Bushnell,  of 
Hartford,  Conn.  He  says  that  the  sufferings  and  death  of 
Christ  are  simply  the  manifestation  of  the  love  of  God  for 
his  children  and  of  his  sense  of  the  evil  of  wrong-doing,  and 
are  intended  to  impress  the  thought  and  heart  of  the  world 
with  these  two  ideas,  and  so  lead  people  to  forsake  the 
wrong,  and  love  and  reverence  that  which  is  right.  I  am 
perfectly  willing  to  admit  the  justice  of  this  theory :  only  it 
gives  up  the  whole  question,  because,  if  you  admit  that  the 
only  thing  necessary  to  do  is  to  touch  the  hearts  of  men  and 
lift  them  out  of  evil  into  the  love  of  right,  then  every  man 
from  the  beginning  of  the  world  who  has  illustrated  in  his 
life  and  in  his  character  devotion  to  that  which  is  right,  all 
the  teachers,  all  the  saviors,  all  the  martyrs,  have  had  their 
proportional  share  in  working  out  the  world's  atonement  for 
its  sins,  in  bringing  them  into  reconciliation  with  God,  so 
that  it  is  no  longer  peculiar  to  the  work  of  Jesus,  but  is 
shared  in  by  all  those  who  have  manifested  a  similar  spirit 
of  love  for  God  and  man,  and  devotion  to  the  truth. 

I  am  now  ready  to  ask  you  to  turn  squarely  round,  and 
face  what  seems  to  me  to  be  the  need  of  men.  I  do  not 
believe  he  needs  to  be  redeemed  in  the  sense  in  which  we 
have  been  speaking.  What  man  needs  is  education.  Do 
not  misunderstand  me.  Do  not  confine  your  thought  to  that 
popular  but  most  shallow  idea  of  what  education  means, — 
the  simple  imparting  of  information  to  people,  the  storing 
of  their  minds  with  facts,  teaching  them  correct  theories 
about  themselves  and  the  world.  This  is  part  of  education  ; 
but,  while  it  is  the  first  in  order  of  time,*it  is  perhaps  the 
least  in  order  of  importance.  Man  needs  education  in  the 
sense  that  his  faculties  and  powers  need  to  be  trained,  de- 
veloped. He  needs  to  be  made,  in  other  words,  a  complete 


112  Religious  Reconstruction 

man, —  complete  in  body,  complete  in  brain,  complete  in 
heart,  complete  in  spirit.  He  needs  to  be  developed  along 
those  lines  that  the  human  race  has  been  following  from 
the  first.  We  need  to  apply  to  man's  present  condition  and 
to  his  future  development  just  the  same  kind  of  intelligence, 
of  choice,  of  direction,  that  we  employ  in  hastening  the  nat- 
ural processes  of  development  in  any  other  department  of 
life.  There  has  been  an  enormous  development  since  the 
beginning  of  the  world  in  fruit  trees,  for  example.  The 
process  of  natural  selection  has  been  going  on, —  poor  spe- 
cies have  been  dying,  and  better  taking  their  place.  But  the 
larger  part  of  the  development  which  has  been  attained  has 
been  the  result  of  intelligent  selection  on  the  part  of  man, 
the  result  of  purpose  in  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
forces  at  work  and  how  they  could  be  controlled  and  di- 
rected. The  same  intelligence,  the  same  choice,  the  same 
purpose,  need  to  be  applied  to  human  development;  and 
if  the  world  would  only  turn  all  its  thought,  its  enthusiasm, 
its  money,  its  time,  its  resources,  in  this  direction,  results 
might  be  attained  in  a  hundred  years  that  will  take  millen- 
niums to  reach  if  we  leave  things  to  what  we  call  the  natural 
order  of  events, —  that  is,  the  natural  order,  with  human 
intelligence,  human  purpose  and  guidance  left  out. 

I  wish  to  speak  of  this  matter  of  education  in  three  differ- 
ent directions.  In  the  first  place,  the  race  needs  to  be  edu- 
cated, to  be  taught  the  truth  concerning  itself.  We  need  to 
know  what  sort  of  beings  we  are,  what  is  our  origin,  what 
our  nature,  what  the  lines  of  our  development  up  to  the 
present  time,  what  the  possibilities  of  progress,  what  things 
help,  what  things  hinder.  The  wisdom  of  that  old  Greek 
saying,  "  Know  thyself,"  needs  to  be  fathomed.  For  con- 
sider in  the  first  place  the  immense  waste  of  our  present 
method,  I  was  going  to  say :  I  must  say,  rather,  our  lack  of 


Redemption  or  Education  ?  113 

method.  Think  of  the  immense  waste  of  thought,  of  time,  of 
money,  of  enthusiasm,  of  effort,  of  aspiration,  of  worship,  from 
our  present  lack  of  system. 

I  was  reading  only  to-day  in  one  of  the  morning  papers 
something  that  recalled  to  me  what  I  have  long  known  con- 
cerning certain  of  the  barbarous  tribes  of  the  world  and  their 
ideas  of  religion.  They  are  fetich  worshippers.  They  believe 
that  everything  that  happens,  especially  anything  that  in- 
jures and  that  they  call  evil,  is  the  work  of  some  wizard, — 
that  some  man  or  woman  in  the  tribe  is  at  the  bottom  of  all 
the  mischief  that  occurs.  If  there  is  a  devastating  storm,  if 
one  of  their  cabins  is  struck  by  lightning,  if  anything  occurs 
of  untoward  significance,  they  try  to  find  out  what  member 
of  the  tribe  is  responsible ;  and  there  is  no  rest  or  peace 
until  he  is  put  to  a  cruel  death.  But  all  the  time  there  is 
not  one  effort  made  to  find  out  the  real  cause  of  the  real 
evils  under  which  they  suffer.  All  the  efforts  of  the  tribe 
are  misdirected  by  superstition  towards  some  false  cause  in- 
stead of  a  true  one.  So  there  is  no  progress,  no  growth, 
except  a  development  in  cruelty  and  superstition. 

Then  look  all  over  the  world :  think  of  the  temples,  the 
altars,  the  shrines ;  think  of  the  prayers  lifted  up,  think  of 
the  efforts  that  have  been  made  ;  think  of  the  heartache,  the 
longings,  the  tears,  all  directed  towards  some  false  conception 
of  God,  all  distorted  by  some  false  theory  of  man,  having  no 
tendency  to  deliver  the  race  from  the  real  evils  that  are  keep- 
ing it  down,  no  real  power  to  lift  up  and  lead  on  towards 
some  grander  ideal  of  which  man  forever  must  dream. 
Think  of  the  wasted  efforts  of  all  these  Christian  centuries 
in  trying  to  placate  a  God  that  never  existed,  in  trying  to 
save  a  man  that  never  was  from  a  condition  of  evil  into 
which  he  had  never  fallen.  And  then  think  where  we  might 
have  been  to-day,  if  intelligent  guidance  had  been  at  work 


1 1 4  Religions  Reconstruction 

in  trying  to  remove  the  real  evils  under  which  the  world  has 
been  suffering. 

It  seems  to  me  that  one  lesson  of  all  this  ought  to  come 
home  to  the  hearts  of  us  who  call  ourselves  intelligent  Uni- 
tarians. I  believe  that  the  services,  the  books,  the  sermons, 
the  pamphlets,  the  teachings,  of  all  Unitarians  ought  to  be 
forever  rid  of  every  shred  of  these  old  and  utterly  unfounded 
theories  of  God,  of  man,  and  of  salvation.  Half  our  churches 
are  praying  every  Sunday  as  though  this  or  something  very 
like  it  were  true.  They  are  reading  Scripture  lessons  that 
imply  it.  They  are  letting  their  choirs  sing  it.  They  are 
teaching  it  or  admitting  it  by  implication  almost  every  Sun- 
clay  in  the  year ;  and  yet,  if  you  ask  any  one  of  them  to 
think  of  this,  if  you  put  the  question  clearly  and  plainly,  they 
will  tell  you  they  do  not  believe  it.  Then  let  us  at  least,  who 
see  the  way,  do  what  we  can  to  help  clear  the  path,  so  that 
the  weak  feet  of  the  race  may  not  stumble  over  imaginary 
obstacles.  Let  us  rouse  ourselves  to  face  the  real  universe, 
the  real  God,  whom  we  can  so  love  and  reverence  and  wor- 
ship. Let  us  face  the  real  men  and  the  real  problems  of 
destiny,  and  help  men  to  a  real  deliverance.  We  need,  then, 
first  to  learn  what  are  the  facts  concerning  ourselves  and  our 
constitution. 

The  next  point  about  which  we  need  to  be  educated 
is  concerning  the  development  of  our  moral  ideal,  of  our 
knowledge  of  morality.  Our  consciences  need  more  and 
more  to  be  quickened,  to  be  made  sensitive,  but  not  to  be 
made  diseased,  not  to  be  distorted,  not  to  be  made  to  grieve 
over  unrealities.  The  consciences  of  most  men  and  women 
are  like  compasses,  the  needles  of  which  are  turned  from 
the  true  north  by  being  in  relation  with  something  that  has 
power  to  draw  them  one  side.  We  need  to  find  out  what  are 
the  real  sins  and  the  real  virtues  of  the  world. 


Redemption  or  Education  ?  115 

Let  me  give  you  one  or  two  illustrations  of  what  I  mean. 
I  think  that  at  least  half  of  the  burdened  consciences  of  men 
and  women  up  to  the  present  time,  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world,  have  been  burdened  by  a  sense  of  sins  which  they 
never  committed,  things  which  were  no  sins.  At  the  same 
time,  they  have  been  committing  things  which  were  really 
sins  with  no  sense  of  having  done  wrong  at  all.  People 
need  to  be  educated  out  of  the  conventional  distinctions  of 
right  and  wrong,  and  taught  what  are  the  real  and  true  dis- 
tinctions, so  that  they  may  avoid  harming  their  fellow-men 
while  they  think  they  are  serving  God.  For  example,  you 
will  find  a  great  many  people  whose  consciences  will  not 
trouble  them  at  all  for  driving  Sunday  afternoon,  who  would 
be  conscience-burdened  if  they  went  to  sail.  In  one  case 
they  are  wearing  out  the  strength  of  some  animal,  while  in 
the  other  case  they  are  not.  If  there  is  any  distinction  in 
ethics,  it  would  certainly  be  in  favor  of  sailing  as  against 
driving.  Then  how  large  a  part  of  the  world  would  be  con- 
science-stricken and  burdened  by  eating  meat  on  Friday ! 
How  many  are  there  who  would  be  troubled  and  think  they 
had  committed  some  great  sin  if  they  should  eat  certain 
kinds  of  meat  on  any  day  in  the  week  !  How  many  persons 
will  not  ride  in  the  horse-cars  on  Sunday,  yet  can  be  bitter 
and  hard  in  their  judgments  concerning  somebody  who  differs 
from  them  in  opinion  !  You  will  find  that  the  greater  part 
of  the  men  and  women  of  the  world  are  so  little  educated 
morally  as  yet  that  they  are  perpetually  making  these  false 
distinctions.  They  allow  their  consciences  to  be  troubled 
over  things  that  do  not  harm  anybody ;  while  without  one 
twinge  of  conscience  they  are  lessening  the  amount  of  happi- 
ness, the  true  welfare,  the  real  life  and  growth,  of  men  and 
women. 

What  is  wrong  ?     What  is  right  ?     Anything  is  wrong,  may 


n6  Religious  Reconstruction 

be  wrong  to-day,  may  have  been  last  year,  may  be  wrong  next 
year,  and  yet  under  certain  conditions  may  not  be,  which  at 
the  time  injures  some  other  life,  takes  away  from  the  sum 
total  of  his  happiness,  takes  away  from  his  welfare,  makes  it 
harder  for  that  person  to  live  and  bear  his  burdens.  Any- 
thing is  wrong  that  injures  mankind,  and  anything  that  does 
not  is  right.  This  is  the  real  distinction.  That  which  the 
human  race  has  discovered  by  its  long  process  of  experience 
to  be  for  the  health,  the  happiness,  and  general  welfare  of 
the  world,  this  is  the  thing  to  call  right ;  and  anything  which 
does  not  injure  the  world  is  at  least  innocent.  The  world 
needs  then  to  be  educated  in  regard  to  these  distinctions  so 
that  its  efforts  may  be  turned  in  the  right  direction.  And 
the  sense  of  right  and  wrong  needs  to  be  made  more  tender, 
more  sensitive,  more  delicate. 

And  how  shall  this  be  brought  about  ?  It  cannot  be  by 
any  direct  means.  You  quicken  any  faculty  only  as  you  legit- 
imately use  it.  So  you  can  quicken  your  conscience,  develop 
your  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  only  as  you  attempt  to 
train  it  in  such  a  way  that  it  shall  make  for  you  clear 
and  fine  and  real  distinctions.  One  of  the  most  important 
roots  of  conscience  is  sympathy.  Thousands  of  people  are 
cruel  and  hard,  working  wrong  to  their  neighbors,  neglecting 
that  which  they  ought  to  do  for  their  fellow-men,  because 
they  have  no  development  of  imaginative  sympathy  by  which 
they  are  able  to  put  themselves  in  the  place  of  others,  and 
think  how  they  would  feel  and  what  they  would  desire 
under  such  and  such  conditions.  We  need  then  to  develop 
this  power  of  sympathy;  and  we  need  to  learn  that  that 
which  is  for  the  welfare  of  all  the  world  must  in  the  long 
run  be  for  the  welfare  of  the  individual,  and  that  which  is 
for  the  true  welfare  of  the  individual  must  in  the  long  run 
be  for  the  welfare  of  all.  There  is  no  contradiction  in 


Redemption  or  Education  ?  117 

ethics.  This  race  of  ours  is  all  bound  together  in  one,  so 
that  we  must  perforce  go  up  or  down  together. 

In  one  other  direction  our  race  needs  to  be  educated.  We 
need  religious  education.  And  what  do  I  mean  by  that  ?  I 
mean  that  we  need  to  be  waked  up  to  the  fact,  which  is  the 
essential  fact  of  all  life,  that  we  are  souls ;  that  we  are 
children  of  the  one,  infinite  Soul  and  Life  of  all,  and  that 
true  life  for  all  of  us  means  sympathetic,  vital  relationship 
with  this  infinite  Soul ;  that  our  lives  are  hid  in  God,  and 
that  only  there  can  we  find  them.  But  we  need  to  learn  that 
we  are  not  to  go  out  of  our  business  or  out  of  our  common 
working  affairs,  out  of  our  common  relationships  with  each 
other,  in  order  to  find  God.  For  this  infinite  Spirit  and  Life 
is  manifested  in  every  phase  of  the  natural  world  about  us 
and  in  the  sum  total  of  human  life  of  which  we  are  a  part. 
Nothing  is  so  wild  an  absurdity  as  that  which  has  been  the 
thought  of  most  of  the  religions  of  the  past,  that  which  Jesus 
himself  condemned  so  earnestly,  that  any  man  can  ever  be  in 
right  relation  to  God  when  he  is  not  in  right  relation  to  his 
fellow-man. 

What  do  I  mean  by  getting  in  right  relation  to  God  ?  So 
far  as  he  is  manifested  in  the  universe  about  us,  it  means 
recognizing  the  laws  of  the  universe  and  coming  into  perfect 
harmony  and  accord  with  them  ;  and  we  know  that  this  means 
health,  peace,  life,  joy.  It  means,  furthermore,  so  far  as  our 
relations  to  our  fellows  are  concerned,  recognizing  that  it  is 
God's  vital,  throbbing  presence  into  which  we  come,  face  to 
face,  as  we  deal  with  our  fellow-men,  and  that  just  in  so  far 
as  we  treat  them  justly,  tenderly,  reverently,  lovingly,  just  in 
so  far  do  we  become  like  God,  come  into  harmony  with  him, 
become  reconciled  to  him.  There  is  no  other  way.  We  are 
to  learn  that  we  love  God,  whether  we  call  him  by  name  or 
not,  just  in  so  far  as  we  love  that  which  is  worthy  of  our  love, 


Ii8  Religious  Reconstruction 

no  matter  whether  it  be  beneath  or  round  or  above  us ;  that 
we  worship  God  whenever  we  appreciate  and  admire  any- 
thing that  is  noble,  uplifting,  that  is  above  us,  and  that 
tends  to  draw  us  into  a  higher  thought  of  life ;  that  we 
serve  God  not  necessarily  by  praying  or  Bible  reading  or 
church  attendance,  or  anything  that  goes  unde'r  the  name 
of  religion,  but  that  we  serve  him  only  as  we  become  like 
him,  and  that  this  is  the  only  service  that  can  ever  be  accept- 
able in  his  sight. 

What,  then,  is  the  value  of  that  which,  up  to  the  present 
time,  has  gone  under  the  name  of  religion  ?  What  is  the 
value  of  the  temple,  the  church,  the  altar,  the  sacrifice,  the 
Bible,  the  prayer,  the  hymn,  the  ritual,  the  sacrament  ?  Have 
they  no  value  ?  That  depends.  If  we  substitute  them  for 
the  true  religion  of  life  and  thought  and  love  every  day  in 
the  week  and  in  every  relation  of  life,  then  they  not  only 
become  useless,  but  pernicious,  as  standing  in  the  way  of 
that  which  they  are  intended  to  serve.  If  they  do  not  help 
us,  then  they  are  of  no  use  to  us,  though  they  may  not  harm. 
If  they  do  help  us,  if  church  or  Bible,  prayer  or  hymn  or  sac- 
rament, anything  that  passes  under  the  name  of  religious  rite 
or  ceremonial,  if  they  quicken  the  conscience,  if  they  fire  the 
heart,  if  they  lift  the  aspiration,  if  they  bring  us  nearer  to 
God,  if  they  bring  us  in  closer  sympathetic  relation  to  our 
fellow-men,  if  they  help  us  to  develop  the  real  religious  life, 
then  they  are  grand,  they  are  stepping-stones  by  which  to 
climb.  But  let  us  never  forget  that  this,  and  this  alone,  is 
what  they  are  for.  We  should  test  them  always  by  the  power 
they  have  to  help  and  to  inspire. 

This,  then,  is  what  this  race  of  ours  needs.  We  have  come 
up  from  the  world  below  us.  There  are  still  in  us,  in  body, 
in  mind,  .in  heart,  in  spirit,  remnants,  traces,  survivals,  of 
that  which  is  lowest  clinging  to  us  and  hindering  our%way. 


Redemption  or  Education  ?  119 

Our  minds  are  clouded  still  with  the  shadows  that  used  to  be 
the  deep  night  of  all  the  world.  Our  instincts,  our  tastes,  our 
hearts,  are  perverted ;  and  we  need  to  be  helped  to  outgrow 
that  which  is  low,  which  is  evil,  in  us.  We  need  to  come  out 
into  the  light,  and  to  become  masters  of  ourselves,  masters  of 
our  conditions,  makers  of  our  destiny,  as  free,  loving  children 
of  God.  Education,  and  not  redemption,  is  what  the  world 
needs. 


JESUS. 


I  WISH  to  begin  by  telling  you  that  it  is  with  a  profound 
feeling  of  responsibility  that  I  undertake  the  discussion  of  a 
question  like  this.  Do  not  think  that  I  utter  any,  even  the 
least,  word  lightly.  I  appreciate,  I  think,  to  the  full  what  it 
means  to  lay  upon  my  soul  the  responsibility  of  shaping, 
moulding,  possibly  changing,  the  opinions  of  others  concern- 
ing subjects  which  are  regarded  as  of  such  vital  import  as 
this.  I  shall  give  you  only  the  result  of  my  most  earnest 
conviction,  of  my  most  careful  thought.  If  I  mistake  in  any 
point,  no  one  in  all  the  world  more  wishes  to  be  set  right. 
And  let  me  tell  you  in  one  word  more  the  attitude  of  my  own 
soul  to-day  towards  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  You  know  well  that 
I  do  not  think  him  God ;  but  never  in  all  my  life  did  I  so 
reverence  him,  never  in  all  my  life  did  I  so  look  up  to  him, 
never  in  all  my  life  had  I  a  feeling  of  such  personal  tender- 
ness and  fellowship  towards  him  as  now.  And  this  comes, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  of  the  changed  conception  which  has 
passed  over  my  own  mind  concerning  his  origin,  his  nature, 
his  character,  and  the  service  he  has  rendered  men. 

I  shall  have  to  treat  so  great  a  theme  as  this  in  broad  out- 
lines. It  is  impossible  in  the  time  allotted  me  that  I  should 
go  into  details.  I  shall  very  likely  leave  out  many  things 
that  you  would  like  to  have  treated,  but  I  shall  try  to  touch 
those  points  that  seem  to  me  most  vital.  I  wish  to  consider 
Jesus  under  a  threefold  aspect, —  as  to  his  history,  his  nature 


Jesus  1 2 1 

and  character,  and  what  he  has  done  for  men ;  and  these 
three  again  in  a  twofold  way, —  from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
old  faith,  and  then  from  the  stand-point  which  I  occupy  to- 
day. I  say  "I"  advisedly,  and  not  "we."  For,  while  I  be- 
lieve that  the  position  I  hold  represents  in  the  main  that  of 
the  best  and  freest  Unitarian  thought,  I  do  not  wish  to  as- 
sume the  responsibility  of  implicating  any  other  single  per- 
son in  any  position  which  I  shall  state  as  being  mine. 

According  to  the  orthodox  belief,  we  cannot  speak  of  the 
"  origin  "  of  Jesus  ;  for,  being  the  second  person  in  the  divine 
and  eternal  Trinity,  he  had  no  origin.  Some  of  the  older 
theologians  speak  of  the  Trinity  as  existing  before  the  worlds 
were  made  in  such  a  way  that,  while  it  was  only  one  God, 
there  were  still  three  personalities  who  could  have  relations 
with  each  other ;  so  that  they  refer  sometimes  to  the  mutual 
love,  the  fellowship,  of  these  divine  personalities,  in  the  one 
God.  They  speak  of  the  councils  of  this  Trinity  :  how  they 
planned  the  foundation  of  the  world,  the  creation  of  man  ; 
how  they  ordained  man's  fall ;  how  they  laid  out  the  scheme 
of  redemption  by  which  the  elect  were  to  be  delivered  from 
the  results  of  that  fall.  According  to  this  belief,  in  the  ful- 
ness of  time,  at  a  specific  point  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
this  second  person  in  the  Trinity,  having  been  prophesied 
for  many  centuries,  having  been  heralded  at  last  by  angelic 
couriers,  not  only  singing  their  song  in  the  heavens  at  the 
time  of  his  advent,  but  forewarning  both  father  and  mother 
that  such  a  being  was  to  be  born,  comes  through  the  gate- 
way of  a  supernatural  birth,  with  no  human  father,  a  divine 
wonder-child.  Born,  according  to  prophecy,  in  the  little  town 
of  Bethlehem  in  Judea,  he  moved  with  his  father  to  make  his 
home  in  the  hill  country  of  Nazareth,  towards  the  north  in 
Galilee.  We  know  nothing  about  his  childhood,  except  the 
fact  of  his  being  presented  according  to  Jewish  custom  at  the 


122  Religions  Reconstruction 

temple  at  the  age  of  twelve.  When  he  is  about  thirty  years 
of  age,  he  makes  his  appearance  to  John  the  Baptist,  who 
was  baptizing  in  the  Jordan  and  preaching  the  coming  of 
the  kingdom  of  heaven.  He  submits  himself,  as  though  he 
were  a  sinful  man  like  the  rest,  to  this  sacred  rite ;  and  then 
he  starts  out  to  preach  the  gospel  of  this  kingdom.  He 
works,  according  to  the  accounts  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  differ, —  a  year  and  a  half  according  to  one  story,  and 
according  to  others  about  three  years, —  visiting  Jerusalem 
once  or  twice  or  three  times  (it  is  impossible  for  us  to  tell 
just  how  often),  performing  wonders  and  prodigies,  healing 
the  sick,  raising  the  dead,  teaching  the  gospel  of  his  king- 
dom, and  at  last  fulfilling  his  mission  by  facing  the  crowd  at 
Jerusalem  at  the  time  of  the  great  feast,  and  being  delivered 
up  into  the  hands  of  the  Roman  authorities,  that  he  might  be 
put  to  an  ignominious  death.  Between  the  time  of  his  death 
and  his  resurrection,  he  goes  down  into  the  underworld,  into 
the  place  of  torment  among  the  lost.  On  the  third  day  he 
miraculously  reappears,  risen  from  the  dead.  He  is  with  his 
disciples,  appearing  and  disappearing,  through  a  period  of 
about  forty  days  ;  and  at  the  end  of  that  time,  with  those 
who  were  about  him,  he  goes  up  into  a  mountain,  and  there/ 
after  some  farewell  words,  commissions  them  to  go  forth  and 
preach  the  gospel  that  he  had  given  among  all  nations. 
Then  he  rises  visibly  in  the  air  until  a  cloud  receives  him 
out  of  their  sight ;  and  from  that  day  until  this  he  has  sat  on 
the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of  God,  a  mediator  and  inter- 
cessor, showing  his  hands,  his  side,  his  feet,  as  evidence  of 
his  suffering,  and  pleading  with  the  Father  for  the  forgive- 
ness of  those  whom  he  by  his  suffering  and  death  had  re- 
deemed. 

Such,  in  brief  outline,  is  the  life   of  this  wonderful  being, 
as  told  us  by  fhe  older  authorities.     Such  the  life  that  he 


Jesus  123 

lived  here  on  earth  and  the  work  he  has  engaged  in  since 
his  disappearance  into  the  skies. 

As  to  his  nature  and  character,  a  few  words  must  suffice. 
As  to  his  character,  I  need  to  say  only  one  word :  that,  since 
he  is  regarded  as  God,  of  course  his  character  is  something 
not  to  be  discussed  or  defined.  We  must  simply  say  all- 
perfect,  and  leave  it  there. 

As  to  his  nature,  however,  a  few  words  of  definition  are 
required.  It  took  a  little  while  in  the  early  councils  of  the 
church  for  them  to  decide  definitely  as  to  how  they  should 
look  upon  him  in  this  regard.  Some  of  them  thought  that 
he  was  simply  God  wearing  a  human  body.  Of  course, 
there  was  only  one  nature.  Some  of  them  thought  that  he 
was  only  man  divinely  sent  and  guided.  Here,  again,  there 
was  only  one  nature ;  and  in  this  case  of  course,  as  in  the 
other,  he  would  have  only  one  will,  the  divine  will  in  the  one 
case  and  a  human  will  in  the  other.  Then,  when  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  grew  up,  he  was  looked  on  as  possessed 
of  a  double  nature.  In  some  mysterious  way,  he  was  God 
and  man  at  once,  so  that  one  could  say  of  him  that  he  knew 
a  thing  as  God  which  he  did  not  know  as  man.  In  this  way, 
the  apologists  have  got  over  the  difficulty  of  his  own  confes- 
sions of  being  ignorant  of  certain  things.  This  ignorance 
was  human  ;  he  knew  these  things  as  God.  He  was,  then, 
this  mysterious  dual  being,  God  and  man  in  wondrous  com- 
bination. But,  if  he  was  God,  the  question  then  came  up  as 
to  whether  he  had  more  than  one  will,  and,  if  so,  what  those 
wills  were.  Did  he  have  a  divine  will  as  a  divine  being,  or 
did  he  have  a  human  will  as  a  human  being?  At  last,  they 
settled  on  what  became  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  churches, 
—  that  he  was  to  be  regarded  as  of  two  natures,  but  one 
will.  So  much  as  to  the  nature  of  this  wondrous  being. 

Now,  as  to  the  work  that  he  wrought.     I  need  not  take 


124  Religions  Reconstruction 

much  time  in  defining  it  on  the  orthodox  theory,  because  I 
have  had  to  anticipate  more  or  less  what  I  should  say  in  this 
regard.  The  work  that  he  wrought  was  the  work  of  atone- 
ment, of  expiation, —  a  work  that  the  Church  has  sometimes 
thought  had  chief  regard  to  God  according  to  its  theories. 
Sometimes,  it  is  thought  that  it  had  regard  to  man,  influ- 
encing God  on  the  one  side,  influencing  man  on  the  other. 
But,  in  either  case,  the  work  that  he  wrought  was  the  making 
it  possible  for  God  to  forgive,  and  leading  man  into  a  will- 
ingness to  be  forgiven,  and  so  saved  from  the  ruin  which 
resulted  from  the  fall.  As  to  whether  he  was  to  save  all 
or  not,  the  Church  has  never  been  agreed.  From  the  begin- 
ning there  have  been  Universalists,  those  who  believed  that 
the  atonement  wrought  was  world-wide  and  pertained  to  all 
souls.  Others  believed  that  his  atonement  only  covered  a 
certain  section  of  humanity,  only  the  elect ;  but  that  work 
was  to  save  men.  From  the  orthodox  view,  this  is  perfectly 
consistent ;  and  he  is  not  rightly  to  be  contrasted  or  com- 
pared with  any  of  the  other  great  men  of  the  world.  He 
did  not  come  to  teach  science;  he  did  not  come  to  teach 
art;  he  did  not  come  to  produce  a  complex  and  growing 
civilization  here  on  earth.  That  was  not  the  work  that  he 
undertook  to  do.  He  left  men  to  their  own  devices,  their 
own  inventions,  so  far  as  these  were  concerned.  It  was  not 
his  business  to  be  a  philanthropist  in  the  sense  of  carrying 
on  popular  reform,  to  put  an  end  to  slavery  and  war.  The 
world  was  to  work  out  its  own  destiny,  while  he  simply  made 
a  way  by  which  people  could  be  saved  in  another  world. 
That  was  the  one  unique  thing  which  he  came  to  do. 

Now,  I  have  a  few  things  that  I  wish  to  say  concerning 
this  scheme  as  thus  outlined  to  us.  I  have  anticipated  some 
of  them;  but,  for  the  completeness  of  the  treatment  of  my 
theme,  I  wish  at  least  to  put  my  finger  on  them  as  I  pass 


Jesus  125 

them,  so  that  this  subject  may  have  a  certain  finish  of  its 
own. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  as  we  at  any  rate  are  fully  persuaded, 
there  was  no  need  of  any  such  life,  any  such  suffering,  any 
such   death,  any  such   work  of   atonement   being   wrought. 
We  go  back,  and  see  that  the  history  of  humanity  not  only 
shows  no  need,  but  shows  that  the  very  need  that  has  been 
supposed  to  have   called   for   this   kind   of   work  does   not 
exist.     Man  has  never  fallen ;  and  so  there  was  no  need  of 
any  plan  for  redeeming  him  from  the  results  of  the  fall. 

2.  In   the    next  place,  there   is  simply  no   proof,  in   the 
human  sense  of  the  word,  that  any  such  wonderful,  incom- 
prehensible being  as  this  ever  existed.     What  proof  could 
there  be  in  this  nineteenth  century  that  a  being  who  lived  in 
the  first  century  combined  in  himself  the  double  natures  of 
God  and  man  ?     We  know  that  similar  beliefs  to  this  were 
common  in  antiquity.     There  was  no  end  of  beings  who  had 
either  a  divine  father  or  a  divine  mother,  and  so  were  sup- 
posed to  partake  of   the  nature  of  both.     It  was  an  easy 
thing  for  this  belief  to  spring  up  in  those  old  times.     We 
know  that  it  was  easy,  because  many  of  them  did  spring  up ; 
but  how  can  there  be  any  proof  ?     Suppose  John,  instead  of 
hinting  such  a  belief,  should  have  left  it  on  explicit  record. 
Suppose  he  had  made  out  an  affidavit,  and  had  had  it  signed 
by  the  proper  legal  authorities  in  Jerusalem,  expressing  his 
profound  conviction  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  one  with 
the  eternal  God  :  of  what  probative  force  would  such  a  state- 
ment  be  to  us   to-day  ?     It  would   be   at   most   simply   an 
expression  of   the  judgment  of   a  certain   unknown  person 
named  John,  of  no  more  value  than  the  judgment  of  any- 
body else,  of  no  more  value  than  the  judgment  of  any  man 
uttered  to-day.     It  seems  to  me  that  in  the  nature  of  things 
a  statement  like  that  is  simply  incapable  of  being  established 
as  true. 


126  Religions  Reconstruction 

3.  The  scheme  that  I  have  just  outlined,  we  have  found, 
does   not  commend  itself  either  as  being  merciful  or  just. 
The  entire  scheme  of  redemption,  if  we  take  into  account  the 
origin  of  the  world,  its  history,  and  the  divine  responsibility 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  we  must  pronounce  as  un- 
merciful and  unjust,  so  that,  if  it  could  be  established  by 
proof,  it  would  only  push  us  farther  away  from  God  instead 
of  drawing  us  nearer  to  him. 

4.  Then  one  other  point.     There  does  not  seem  to  me  to 
be  any  inspiration,  any  sense  of  companionship,  any  help,  in 
the  thought  of  a  being  of  this  double,  mysterious,  incompre- 
hensible nature.     How  can  he  be  an  example  to  me  ?     How 
can  he   be  an  inspiration  to   me  ?     On   that  theory,  Jesus 
becomes   only    a   theophany,  a   divine    apparition,   and   the 
humanity  must  be  lost  to  us.     It  seems  to  me  that,  in  order 
to  conceive  him  a  real  being  at  all,  we  must  think  of  him 
either  as  God  or  man ;  but,  even  though  we  think  we   do, 
we  do  not  succeed  in  thinking  of  him  as  both. 

Suppose  you  talk  about  the  sufferings  of  the  God-man : 
what  suffering  is  there  for  one  who  is  conscious  that  he  is 
Almighty  God?  To  attempt  to  produce  a  dramatic  effect 
on  the  world  by  portraying  the  possible  sufferings  of  the 
Almighty  God  of  the  universe  seems  even  absurd.  Sup- 
pose he  bore  patiently  the  affronts  of  men :  cannot  a  God 
be  patient  with  a  little  human  ignorance  and  evil  ?  Suppose 
he  meets  a  difficulty :  what  is  a  difficulty  to  the  Omnipotent  ? 
Where  can  be  the  sense  of  patience,  of  endeavor,  and  then 
the  ecstasy  of  triumph,  to  one  who  is  divine  ?  How,  then, 
can  he  be  an' example  to  me  in  the  midst  of  my  burdens,  my 
sorrows,  my  temptations,  my  struggles  ?  It  would  not  com- 
fort me  or  make  me  feel  any  stronger  to  see  a  giant  accom- 
plish something  that  was  perfectly  easy  to  him.  What 
comforts  me,  what  helps  me,  what  inspires  me,  is  to  find 


Jesus  127 

some  one  on  my  level  who  can  feel  the  burdens  I  feel,  who 
can  face  the  temptations  I  face,  who  can  understand  the 
difficulties  I  understand,  who  can  feel  the  brain  perplexities, 
the  problems  he  cannot  solve  any  more  than  I  can.  To 
find  such  a  one  bravely  taking  the  next  step,  though  he 
cannot  see  his  way  any  clearer  than  I  can ;  to  see  some  one, 
who  shares  with  me  my  full  nature,  braver  than  I  am,  more 
patient  than  I  am,  stronger  than  I  am, —  that  comforts,  that 
makes  me  feel,  Here  is  an  example,  here  is  an  inspiration, 
here  is  something  I  can  be  and  do ! 

5.  And,  then,  it  is  commonly  told  us  that  the  death  and  res- 
urrection of  Jesus,  his  resurrection  especially,  was  assurance 
and  warranty  for  our  own  belief  in  a  future  life.  I  cannot 
see  how  the  statement  touches  the  question.  Because  a 
God  whose  body  has  been  dead  for  three  days  resumes  that 
body  again,  what  proof  is  that  that  I,  who  am  not  a  God, 
and  whose  body  must  go  back  and  mingle  with  the  earthy 
elements  out  of  which  it  came,  perhaps  for  thousands  of 
years,  shall  rise  again  ?  It  seems  to  me  there  is  no  parallel- 
ism, no  assurance,  no  comfort  here. 

But  I  must  leave  this  side  of  my  theme,  and  hasten  to  the 
other,  and  try  to  give  you  my  conception  of  the  life,  the 
nature,  the  character,  and  the  service  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

I  can  speak  of  his  origin.  I  believe  not  that  he  was  born 
in  Bethlehem,  but  that  he  was  born  four  or  five  years  before 
the  beginning  of  our  era,  in>  the  little  town  of  Nazareth  in 
Galilee.  The  statement  that  he  was  born  in  Bethlehem  is 
evidently  the  result  of  the  supposed  necessity  of  having  the 
Messiah  born  there  because  there  was  a  tradition  that  he 
was  to  be.  And  so  years  and  years  after  his  death,  when 
his  biography  comes  to  be  written,  it  is  taken  for  granted  that 
he  must  have  been  born  in  Bethlehem,  because  it  was  popu- 
larly believed  that  the  Messiah  was  foreordained  to  be  born 


128  Religious  Reconstruction 

there.  There  is  no  other  reason  that  I  know  of  for  suppos- 
ing that  he  was  born  anywhere  else  than  in  Nazareth.  He 
was  born  like  any  other  human  baby,  and  grew  up  in  the 
midst  of  the  simple  influences  of  that  quiet  country  village. 
We  have  no  glimpse  of  his  childhood  except  that  one  — 
which  is  doubtless  historic  —  of  his  appearance  in  the 
temple,  a  boy  of  precocious  development,  of  deep  thought, 
of  wonderful  nature  even  then,  but  showing  no  traces  of 
being  more  precocious  than  many  another  human  boy  has 
been.  Nothing  more  is  seen  of  him  till  he  is  about  thirty 
years  of  age.  Then  comes  his  baptism  ;  and  he  starts  out  on 
his  mission  to  reform  the  religious  life  of  his  people.  He 
goes  about  doing  good,  showing  sympathy,  patience,  tender- 
ness, trust ;  bearing  bravely  hardship  and  toil,  preaching 
what  he  believes  to  be  the  truth  as  revealed  to  him  by  the 
whisper  of  God  to  his  soul,  willing  to  bear  anything  for  the 
sake  of  that  truth,  facing  the  obstacles  that  meet  him  at  every 
turn,  bearing  what  is  harder  than  all  other  things  for  a  re- 
former to  bear, —  the  suspicion,  the  distrust,  and  the  desertion 
of  his  own  friends,  those  whom  he  thought  he  could  count 
on  though  all  the  rest  of  the  world  were  against  him.  So 
he  lives  out  his  life  bravely,  and  at  last,  in  Jerusalem,  faces 
the  mob  with  his  higher  truth,  rebuking  the  sins  of  the  rulers 
and  teachers  of  the  people,  though  he  knew  he  was  laying 
himself  liable  to  arrest  and  punishment.  It  is  a  question  in 
my  own  mind  whether  he  did  riot  expect  divine  interference 
to  save  him,  and  to  establish  the  kingdom  in  which  he  had 
come  so  firmly  to  believe ;  for  there  is  no  question  that  he 
regarded  himself  as  the  appointed  Messiah,  the  leader  of  his 
people ;  and  naturally,  in  an  age  when  miracle  was  supposed 
to  be  an  every-day  occurrence,  he  might  expect  that  the 
strong  hand  of  the  Almighty  would  be  put  forth  to  help  and 
save  him,  and  thus  establish  the  work  in  which  God  must 


Jesus  129 

have  himself  been  interested.  There  is  an  indication  at  the 
very  last  of  this  temporary  disappointment  of  Jesus.  When 
he  hangs  on  the  cross,  just  before  he  dies,  he  seems  to  have 
wondered  for  one  wavering  instant, —  a  wavering  that  makes 
us  feel  unspeakably  more  tender  towards  him,  because  there 
is  a  touch  of  such  simple  humanity  about  it,  a  wavering  that 
makes  me  feel  as  though  I  would  take  him  in  my  arms  and 
comfort  him  if  I  might,  when  he  cries,  "  My  God,  my  God, 
why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ? "  Is  there  anything  sublimer, 
more  tenderly  touching  in  all  human  history  than  that  of  a 
soul  brave  even  unto  death,  in  spite  of  the  weakness  that 
craves  so  to  feel  the  touch  of  God's  hand  ? 

The  nature  and  character  of  Jesus :  I  do  not  feel  myself 
adequate  to  portray  my  dream  of  such  a  man,  gentle  until 
he  seems  womanly;  with  endurance  such  as  martyrs  are 
made  of;  with  a  boldness  that  shrunk  not  from  the  most 
monstrous  of  all  earthly  monsters, —  a  howling,  hooting 
mob ;  a  courage  that  could  stand  unflinching  even  in  the 
shadow  of  the  cross, —  a  courage  all  the  more  courageous 
because  of  the  shrinking.  Does  not  your  heart  leap  to  meet 
the  bravery  of  that  officer  —  I  use  this  simply  as  a  feeble 
illustration  —  who,  when  the  bullets  were  whistling  about 
him,  was  addressed  by  a  new  comer,  a  young  officer,  who 
half-tauntingly  said,  "I  judge  from  the  blanching  of  your 
face  that  you  are  afraid."  And  he  said,  "  Yes,  I  am  afraid ; 
and,  if  you  were  only  half  as  afraid  as  I  am,  you  would 
run."  That  is  courage  that  sees  the  danger,  and  does  not 
run.  That  was  the  courage  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  combined 
with  a  tenderness  unsurpassed  in  that  of  any  historic  char- 
acter the  world  has  ever  seen, —  a  compassion  peculiarly 
divine,  it  seems  to  me,  towards  the  frail  and  the  fallen,  and 
yet  with  a  power  of  wrath  that  had  the  cut  of  the  lightning 
stroke.  But  his  wrath,  mind  you,  was  always  for  respectable 


130  Religious  Reconstruction 

sinners,  for  the  hard,  the  grasping,  the  avaricious,  the  cruel, 
for  those  who  ground  down  their  fellows,  those  who  coined 
the  heart's  blood  of  their  fellows  into  money  for  their  own 
gratification.  His  pity,  his  ineffable  tenderness,  all  and 
always  was  for  what  we  call  the  fleshly  frailties,  the  infirm- 
ities, the  weaknesses,  of  men  and  women.  For  them,  never 
a  hard  word  fell  from  his  loving,  sympathetic,  helpful  lips. 
He  was  human.  When  we  say  human,  do  not  think  of  hu- 
manity at  its  lowest.  Do  not  think  we  degrade  Jesus  as  in 
those  pitiful  terms  which  speak  of  him  as  a  "  mere  man." 
Do  we  know  any  grander  word  to  apply  to  any  being  than 
to  say,  with  the  loftiest,  deepest,  widest  significance  that 
can  attach  to  it,  "  He  was  a  man "  ?  Can  you  say  any- 
thing grander  than  that,  a  man  in  the  highest  reach  of 
manliness  ? 

Was  he  perfect  ?  Frankly,  I  must  tell  you  that  I  do  not 
know.  There  is  no  man  in  all  history  concerning  whose 
personal  biography  we  know  less  than  we  know  of  Jesus, — 
only  one  glimpse  of  him  for  thirty  years,  when  he  was  a  boy 
of  twelve ;  all  the  rest  a  blank.  We  know  not  whether  he 
was  perfect  up  to  his  thirtieth  year  or  not.  All  that  we  can 
do  is  to  judge  what  those  years  must  have  been  by  the  fruit- 
age that  the  life  bears  after  that.  I  do  not  know  whether  he 
was  a  perfect  man  or  not ;  and  reverently  let  me  say  it  is  not 
a  question  that  even  has  interest  for  me.  I  do  not  care. 
It  is  not  the  most  perfect  men  that  have  rendered  the  world 
the  most  service  or  helped  it  the  most.  He  was  nearly 
enough  perfect.  He  was  grand  and  high  enough  to  be  an 
inspiration,  a  helper,  a  leader  to  all  the  ages  since  his 
time. 

I  believe  that  Jesus  died  like  any  other  man,  was  buried 
like  any  other  man.  I  have  no  confidence  in  the  story  of 
a  physical  resurrection.  I  do  think,  however,  that  it  is  quite 


Jesus  1 3 1 

possible  that  his  disciples  saw  him  after  his  death ;  for  he 
was  not  in  the  tomb  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea.  Men  like  that 
are  never  buried.  He  lived,  continued  to  live.  This  is  the 
strongest  faith  of  my  soul.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  impossi- 
ble that  he  might  have  been  seen,  that  he  might  even  have 
spoken  with  his  disciples;  and  that  is  enough  to  account  for 
the  stories  that  were  circulated  concerning  him  in  after 
years. 

Now,  I  turn  from  this  outline,  bald  and  meagre,  to  touch 
on  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  services  which  he  has  rendered 
to  the  world. 

I  told  you  the  other  day  that  the  advocates  of  almost  any 
great  religion  have  always  been  accustomed  to  claim  as  the 
result  of  that  religion  all  the  good  things  that  they  have  found 
in  existence  among  the  people  who  believe  in  it.  There  has 
been  in  the  Christian  Register  recently  —  in  the  Christmas 
number  —  a  symposium,  contributed  to  by  the  leading  Uni- 
tarians of  the  country,  each  one  expressing  his  opinion  as 
to  what  Jesus  has  done  for  the  world.  In  that  symposium, 
you  find  an  illustration  of  this  point  that  I  have  in  mind. 
There  is  a  certain  class  of  Christians  who  are  ready  to  claim 
that  everything  that  distinguishes  Christendom  to-day  above 
all  the  other  people  of  the  earth  is  due  to  the  life,  the  teach- 
ings, and  the  work  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  But  here,  again, 
I  must  say  to  you  that  it  seems  to  me  this  question  is  impos- 
sible to  answer.  Are  we  to  think  of  all  the  good  things  in 
the  world,  or  in  that  section  of  the  world  covered  by  the 
name  Christendom,  as  having  been  given  to  us  as  a  direct 
result  of  the  life  and  teachings  and  work  of  Jesus  ?  Con- 
sider a  moment.  Here  is  a  great  stream  of  humanity.  Its 
origin  is  God.  This,  which  we  call  humanity,  this  mighty 
river,  we  lose  in  the  mists  of  antiquity.  It  emerges  at  last 
into  light.  Moses  contributed  something  to  it.  Isaiah  con- 


132  Religions  Reconstruction 

tributed  something,  and  the  whole  host  of  Hebrew  heroes. 
Socrates,  Plato,  and  many  a  Greek  philosopher,  poet,  and 
artist  has  poured  his  tribute  into  it.  Roman  writers  —  Cicero, 
Seneca,  Virgil  —  have  added  their  tributary  streams.  As 
it  has  come  down  the  ages,  all  the  great  men  of  the  world, 
—  Savonarola,  Huss,  Luther,  Dante, —  the  great  group  of 
artists  at  the  time  of  the  Renaissance,  scholars,  humanita- 
rians, all  the  leading  thinkers,  inventors,  discoverers,  writers, 
of  the  most  civilized  nations  of  the  globe,  have  contributed 
their  mite  to  humanity.  Who  shall  untangle  this  mighty 
skein,  and  tell  what  threads  lead  directly  back  to  Nazareth  ? 
Here  are  all  the  differences  constituted  by  the  distinctions 
of  nationality,  of  race.  If  Christianity  produces  the  same 
effects  on  all  nations,  how,  then,  does  it  happen  that  certain 
Eastern,  Oriental,  nations  that  from  the  beginning  have  been 
Christian  are  among  the  most  mean  and  contemptible  people 
on  the  globe  ?  If  Christianity  makes  everybody  that  it 
takes  into  its  power  equally  great,  where  is  the  difference 
between  Spain  and  Germany,  between  France  and  the  Norse- 
men ?  It  seems  to  me  that  race — these  qualities  that  we 
derive  from  God  himself — must  account  for  much.  We  can- 
not, then,  undertake  what  seems  to  me  the  impossible  task 
of  saying  how  much  precisely  of  that  which  constitutes  the 
glory  of  Christendom  has  come  from  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

One  thing  more  seems  unquestioned  in  regard  to  the  direct 
teachings  of  Jesus.  There  is  no  man  who  ever  lived  whose 
teachings  have  influenced  the  world  to  any  great  extent  who 
was  really  less  original  in  the  sense  of  being  the  first  to 
utter  a  saying  attributed  to  him  than  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
But  there  is  something  more  than  originality  in  Jesus,  some- 
thing that  seems  to  me  mightier.  Most  of  the  sayings  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  can  be  traced  in  some  shape  or 
other  to  some  earlier  thinker.  He  did  not  even  originate  the 


Jesus  133 

Golden  Rule  ;  and  Hillel,  a  teacher  in  Jerusalem  during  the 
century  preceding  Jesus,  was  the  first  who  gave  utterance 
to  that  thought  of  the  whole  law  being  comprised  in  love  to 
God  and  man  ;  so  that  the  most  distinctive  sayings  of  Jesus 
did  not  originate  with  him. 

Now  turn  to  the  positive  side.  How  much  is  to  be  attrib- 
uted to  Jesus  and  how  much  to  race  I  may  not  venture  to 
say ;  but  I  believe  that  a  great  deal  of  it  we  do  owe  to  this 
wondrous  character.  This  Christendom  of  ours  has  come 
to  be  more  and  more,  as  ages  have  gone  by,  distinguished 
for  what  we  may  call  the  quality  of  humanity,  for  humane- 
ness, for  the  recognition  of  the  value  of  men  as  men,  as 
partakers  of  the  divine  nature  without  regard  to  race,  with- 
out regard  to  caste,  without  regard  to  social  condition,  with- 
out regard  to  religion.  It  has  been  growing,  this  feeling  of 
humanity.  The  mightiest  power  to-day  perhaps  in  our  civil- 
ization, that  which  has  in  it  the  most  of  promise  for  the 
future,  has  been  the  peculiarly  fine,  distinctive  qualities  that 
were  characteristics  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  From  his  day  to 
this,  though  warring  factions  have  been  fighting  with  his 
name  as  a  watchword  on  their  lips,  he  has  hung  in  the 
heavens  over  all  the  turmoil  on  earth,  as  the  sun  hangs 
above  the  stormy  sea ;  and,  as  the  calm,  bright,  blue  sky 
tends  to  soothe  and  quiet  the  storm,  so  at  last  his  own 
perfect,  light-giving  image  has  been  reflected  back  to  the 
heavens. 

Then  who  shall  measure  another  power, —  the  power  of 
the  ideal  humanity  that  has  come  to  attach  itself  to  the 
name  of  Jesus  ?  Jesus  has  for  ages,  whatever  else  he  may 
have  been,  stood  as  an  ideal  man  in  the  thought,  the  heart, 
the  life  of  the  world;  and  there  is  no  power  mightier  to 
propagate  this  in  their  hearts  and  their  lives  than  just  this 
dream  of  the  ideal.  Men  have  forever  been  haunted  by  the 


134  Religious  Reconstruction 

thought  of  this  possible  human  perfection,  purity,  tenderness, 
justice,  truth ;  and  it  has  spoken  to  them  so  that  they  have 
been  compelled  to  hear  this  still  small  voice  above  all  the 
turmoil  and  clamor  of  life,  and  it  has  had  power  to  repro- 
duce itself  in  millions  of  other  lives. 

There  is  one  other  power  that  I  wish  to  emphasize  as  dis- 
tinctively a  peculiar  and  mighty  power  of  Jesus,  such  as  at- 
taches to  no  other  historic  character.  If  you  have  ever 
thought  deeply,  if  you  have  studied  the  world,  if  you  have 
observed  life,  if,  in  short,  you  have  lived,  you  have  learned 
this :  that  there  are  men  and  women  who,  the  moment  you 
go  near  them,  seem  to  tap  your  vitality,  to  drain  the  life 
out  of  you.  They  are  like  a  drizzly,  sleety  day,  which,  in 
spite  of  yourself,  will  depress  you,  weigh  you  down.  You 
feel  their  presence  as  a  sort  of  incubus ;  and  you  are  glad 
to  escape,  as  one  escapes  out  of  a  cave  into  daylight. 
Then  there  are  others  in  whose  presence  you  feel  as  a  plant 
feels  when  the  sun  shines  on  it,  when  it  is  refreshed  by  the 
dew,  when  it  is  played  upon  by  the  life-giving  air.  You 
feel  stronger  in  their  presence,  you  feel  kindled,  inspired, 
lifted  up.  Your  brain  has  more  power,  your  heart  more 
courage,  your  nerve  is  braced.  You  are  a  thousand  times 
more  a  man.  These  are  the  ones  —  who  can  explain  it  ?  — 
who  have  the  power  to  impart  life  by  contact.  I  do  not 
believe  that  any  one  possesses  that  power  who  has  an  in- 
ferior brain ;  but  the  brain  part  of  it  is  not  the  chief  part. 
So  far  as  I  can  understand  or  describe  it.  it  is  soul  power, 
the  power  of  the  divine  in  us. 

And,  as  one  feels  life  thrilling  from  contact  with  God  him- 
self, so  we  are  made  more  alive  when  we  come  into  the  pres- 
ence of  these  souls,  and  are  permitted  to  touch  even  the 
hem  of  their  garments.  I  do  not  know  of  an  historic  man 
who  possessed  this  life-giving  quality  to  the  same  extent  or 


Jesus  135 

the  same  degree  that  Jesus  possessed  it.  In  his  presence, 
we  feel  the  touch  of  life,  we  are  lifted,  inspired,  made  strong. 

Jesus  and  souls  like  him  help  us  in  another  way.  We  see 
them  towering  above  us  like  mountains  that  catch  the  first 
rays  of  light,  while  we  are  in  the  dark.  We  are  not  tall 
enough  to  see,  but  we  can  believe  that  they  see  what  they 
tell  us  they  do.  They  can  impart  to  us  their  faith,  their 
trust;  and  it  seems  to  me  a  purely  rational  thing.  As  a 
man  on  a  mountain  summit  can  see  what  I  cannot  in  the 
valley,  so,  when  some  man  that  I  recognize  as  having  brain 
and  heart  and  soul  unspeakably  above  me  assures  me  that 
he  does  see  some  great  spiritual  verity,  I  can  at  any  rate 
feel  that  he  probably  does ;  and  so  I  gain  a  grander  faith 
in  that  which  I  was  disposed  to  doubt  and  let  slip  from 
my  grasp. 

As  my  contribution  to  the  symposium  to  which  I  have 
referred  in  the  Christian  Register,  I  expressed  this  thought  in 
the  following  sonnet :  — 

As  when  the  valleys  all  in  shadow  lie, 
And  shadowy  shapes  of  fear  still  haunt  the  night, 
Some  mountain  peak  reflects  the  coming  light, 

And  waiting  lips  break  forth  with  joyful  cry 

For  gladness  that  at  last  the  day  is  nigh, — 
So  when  some  soul,  that  towers  afar,  is  bright, 
The  souls  that  sit  in  shadow,  at  the  sight, 

Grow  sudden  glad  to  know  'tis  light  on  high ! 

And  when  these  mountain-towering  men  can  say, 
"  We  see,  though  it  be  hidden  from  your  eyes," 

We  can  believe  in  better  things  to  be  ! 
So,  though  the  shadows  still  obscure  our  way, 
We  see  the  light,  reflected  from  the  skies, 
That  crowns  thy  brows,  O  Man  of  Galilee ! 


THE  OLD  CHURCH  AND  THE  NEW. 


A  VERY  superficial  examination  of  the  conditions  of  the 
modern  world  reveals  the  fact  that  the  church  to-day  has  no 
such  hold  on  the  hearts,  the  minds,  the  fears,  the  consciences 
of  the  great  masses  of  the  people  as  it  has  had  in  the  past. 
And  yet  I  believe,  with  all  my  heart,  that  the  church,  or  a 
similar  organization  under  some  other  name,  that  shall  be 
the  church  in  essence,  that  shall  stand  for  its  purposes  and 
accomplish  its  work,  shall  see  a  grander  history  in  the  future 
than  it  has  ever  known  in  the  past. 

Those  who  still  believe  that  the  church  is  a  miraculously 
established  divine  institution  do  recognize  the  fact  —  because 
they  cannot  help  it  —  that  there  are  fewer  and  fewer  among 
the  more  highly  civilized,  the  better  educated,  of  the  world 
who  agree  with  it.  The  tendency  is  undoubtedly  away  from 
that  old  idea  of  the  church.  The  tendency  is  to  discredit 
its  exclusive  claims,  and  to  feel  that  we  can  get  along  very 
comfortably  without  it,  and  to  cast  off  all  anticipation  of  any 
disastrous  results  in  the  future  on  account  of  its  neglect.  I 
say  those  who  believe  most  strongly  in  the  claims  of  the 
church  do  recognize  this  fact.  They  are  afraid  of  it.  They 
wonder  whether  it  means  a  tendency  downward  to  a  deeper 
depravity  on  the  part  of  the  world,  or  whether  it  is  only  a 
temporary  tendency,  springing  up  as  the  result  of  modern 
science  and  of  the  enlargement  of  the  secular  life  of  the  civil- 
ized world.  But  they  recognize  the  fact;  and  that  is  the 


The  Old  Church  and  the  New  137 

point  that  I  wish  to  emphasize.  On  the  other  hand,  these 
more  highly  educated,  better  civilized,  freer  men  and  women 
are  coming  to  feel  more  and  more,  in  certain  quarters  at  any 
rate,  that  the  church  is  something  that  is  going  to  die  away, 
however  long  it  may  be  about  it.  They  believe  that  it  is  a 
thing  of  the  past,  and  that  the  future  is  to  see  no  church. 
They  have  identified  these  ecclesiastical  organizations  with 
certain  theories  concerning  God,  concerning  men,  concern- 
ing human  destiny;  and  since  they  are  thoroughly  convinced 
that  these  theories  are  discredited,  since  they  no  longer  hold 
them,  they  see  no  reason  for  supposing  that  the  church  is  to 
continue.  They  believe  that  it  will  confine  itself  to  the  rep- 
resentation of  these  old  and  dying  beliefs,  and,  when  the  last 
trace  of  these  antique  conceptions  of  the  universe  has  passed 
out  of  sight,  that  the  church  will  fade  away  with  them. 

I  wish,  therefore,  to  ask  you  to  join  with  me  in  consider- 
ing for  a  little  while  the  origin  of  the  church,  some  phases 
in  the  course  of  its  development,  and  the  tendency  of 
things  to-day,  that  we  may  come  to  some  rational  conclusion 
as  to  what  the  true  church  is,  as  to  whether  there  is  any  per- 
manent basis  for  it,  whether  we,  as  manly  men  and  womanly 
women,  are  to  still  continue  our  loyalty  to  it,  whether  it  is 
something  permanent  as  a  part  of  the  better  and  higher  life 
of  the  world 

Some  one  —  I  do  not  remember  who  —  has  said,  "No  syn- 
agogue, no  church ;  "  expressing  in  this  terse  phrase  the  fact 
that  the  church  grew  out  of  the  Jewish  synagogue.  Un- 
doubtedly this  was  true ;  but,  if  it  means  that  there  never 
would  have  been  any  Christian  Church  but  for  the  Jewish 
synagogue,  I  must  take  exception  to  the  statement,  for  I  be- 
lieve that  that  which  lies  at  the  heart  of  this  religious  organi- 
zation which  we  call  the  church  would  have  manifested  itself 
in  the  course  of  human  development  whether  there  had  been 


138  Religious  Reconstruction 

a  synagogue  or  not.  But,  historically,  it  is  true  that  the 
Christian  Church  did  spring  out  of  the  Jewish  synagogue. 
I  wish,  therefore,  to  note  this  synagogue  for  a  moment,  that 
we  may  see  how  naturally  the  church  was  evolved  out  of  it ; 
and,  as  the  church  came  from  the  synagogue,  so  we  may 
believe  that  out  of  the  church  may  be  evolved  something, 
under  whatever  name,  which  shall  represent  a  still  higher 
form  of  development. 

In  the  early  history  of  the  Jews  there  was  only  a  taber- 
nacle besides  certain  holy  places  here  and  there, —  conse- 
crated spots  where  the  people  came  together  to  offer  sacri- 
fices. The  synagogue  sprang  up  as  a  manifestation  of  the 
later  religious  life.  During  the  exile,  when  they  could  not 
go  to  the  temple,  after  the  written  law  came  to  be  recog- 
nized as  the  guide  and  teacher  of  the  people,  then  the  syna- 
gogue grew  up  as  a  perfectly  natural  development,  an  ex- 
pression of  the  common  need  of  the  people  to  assemble 
together  at  some  stated  time  for  the  study  of  this  "law  of 
God  "  which  they  recognized  as  the  law  of  their  lives.  So  we 
find  that  during  the  later  life  of  the  Jewish  people,  scattered 
all  over  the  country,  in  every  little  town,  were  the  syna- 
gogues ;  and  so  many  in  Jerusalem  that  they  were  probably 
numbered  by  the  hundred.  It  took  at  least  ten  men  to  con- 
stitute the  organization  which  was  the  heart  of  the  synagogue 
life  and  worship.  The  synagogue  was  usually  built  on  some 
high  place,  some  elevation  in  the  town.  It  was  the  centre 
of  the  religious  life  of  the  people.  As  the  people  entered  it 
and  as  they  sat  down  to  worship,  they  always  faced  towards 
the  holy  city.  The  one  thing  they  did  was  to  gather  here 
to  listen  to  the  reading  of  the  law  and  its  exposition,  that 
they  might  comprehend  and  so  be  in  condition  to  obey  the 
word  of  God  as  they  understood  it.  The  synagogue,  then, 
was  in  vigorous,  flourishing  life  when  Jesus  came  ;  but  Jesus, 


The  Old  Church  and  the  New  139 

so  far  as  any  record  is  given,  did  not  organize  any  church. 
Apparently,  it  did  not  occur  to  him  to  organize  one.  Neither, 
as  I  believe,  did  he  appoint  any  sacraments  or  rites,  such  as 
baptism  or  the  Supper,  with  any  idea  that  they  were  to  be- 
come a  permanent  part  of  such  a  growing  civilization  as  the 
world  has  attained  since  his  day. 

Let  us  see  what  Jesus  did,  and  why.  He  came  to  this 
earth,  and  cast  his  seeds  of  divine  truth  into  the  midst  of  the 
society  about  him,  and  then  was  speedily  cut  off  before  he 
had  time  to  organize  anything,  even  if  that  had  been  his  in- 
tention ;  but,  doubtless,  it  was  not  his  intention.  Beyond  any 
rational  question,  as  it  seems  to  me,  Jesus  believed, —  for  he 
most  explicitly  taught  this,  if  he  be  correctly  reported, —  that 
the  end  of  the  present  order  of  things  was  to  come  before 
some  of  those  with  whom  he  was  speaking  should  die. 
What  call  then,  what  need,  what  room,  for  any  such  organi- 
zation as  the  church  ?  There  would  be  this  general  organi- 
zation of  renewed  humanity  in  what  he  called  the  kingdom 
of  God,  after  his  speedy  reappearance ;  but  in  the  mean  time 
there  was  no  need  of  any  church.  And  it  seems  to  me  that 
it  lies  clearly  open  on  the  very  surface  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment that  Jesus  did  not  establish  any  such  rites  as  baptism 
or  the  Lord's  Supper  with  any  idea  of  their  being  perma- 
nent elements  in  any  church  life.  Jesus  is  reported,  I  know, 
as  saying,  among  the  very  last  things  that  he  uttered  to  his 
disciples  before  he  ascended  into  heaven,  "  Go  ye  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost."  It  seems  to  me  incredible  that  he  could  have 
used  this  language,  because  in  a  few  years  we  find  his  disci- 
ples quarrelling  over  the  question  whether  the  gospel  was  to 
be  preached  to  any  one  but  the  Jews.  This  would  have  been 
impossible  if  he  had  given  an  explicit  command  on  the  sub 


140  Religions  Reconstruction 

ject.  In  regard  to  the  matter  of  baptism,  we  know  that  this 
formula  about  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  did  not  grow 
up  for  many  years  after  the  time  of  Jesus'  death.  We  find 
Paul,  in  a  letter  to  the  church  in  Corinth,  discussing  some 
of  the  factions  that  had  grown  up,  and  expressing  his  gratifi- 
cation that  he  had  baptized  only  two  or  three,  lest  some  one 
should  charge  him  with  attempting  to  build  up  a  church,  an 
organization,  around  his  own  personality,  lest  they  should 
say  "he  had  baptized  in  his  own  name."  If  there  had  been 
a  direct  command  from  the  leader  of  the  church,  from  the 
very  God  of  the  universe  himself,  to  baptize  after  a  par- 
ticular and  specific  form,  it  is  incredible  that  it  should  have 
entered  the  mind  of  the  apostle  that  any  one  could  baptize 
in  any  other  name. 

Then,  in  regard  to  the  Supper,  the  matter  seems  to  me 
equally  clear.  Jesus  broke  bread,  and  askecl  his  disciples 
after  his  death  to  remember  him  when  they  met  together  to 
break  bread, —  one  of  the  simplest  things  in  all  the  world  : 
"  Remember  me  every  day  when  you  meet  together  and 
break  bread ;  recall  to  mind  the  fact  that  I  broke  bread 
with  you,  and  asked  that  you  should  thus  recall  my  memory." 
But,  since  the  whole  existing  order  of  things  was  to  come  to 
an  end  before  that  generation  should  pass  away,  it  could  not 
have  entered  his  mind  that  this  rite  should  ever  assume  any 
such  proportions  as  it  has  in  the  history  of  the  world.  But, 
though  he  did  not  establish  any  church  nor  found,  as  I 
believe,  any  special  sacraments,  yet  the  growth  of  the  church 
was  perfectly  natural.  After  he  had  passed  away,  those  in 
sympathy  met  together  to  talk  over  their  common  hope, 
their  common  fears,  their  common  duties.  They  met  on  the 
day  which  recalled  the  one  when,  as  they  believed,  he  had 
shown  himself  victor  over  death.  They  met  together  to  talk 
over  the  words  that  he  had  left  them,  and  the  mission  that 


'Ihc   Old  Church  and  the  New  141 

he  had  committed  to  their  care.  Then,  as  they  attempted 
to  spread  this  gospel  among  their  fellow-men,  they  would 
naturally  have  some  meeting-place,  some  meeting-time,  some 
specific  form  of  gathering  themselves  together ;  and  so  the 
church,  which  simply  means  a  meeting,  a  coming  together, 
would  be  as  natural  as  the  bursting  of  a  bud  in  the  spring. 

The  church,  then,  was  the  simple,  rational,  human  organ- 
ization of  those  in  sympathy  with  each  other  in  their  com- 
mon hopes  and  purposes.  But  when  the  coming  of  Jesus 
had  been  long  delayed,  and  the  church  had  grown  to  such 
proportions  that  those  who  were  its  leaders  and  guides  could 
see  before  them  the  tremendous  and  almost  universal  power 
over  men  which  it  would  exercise,  then  it  naturally  changed 
the  form  of  its  organization,  and  became  a  closer  body,  with 
a  hierarchy  of  officers,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest.  And 
as  it  claimed  to  stand  as  the  very  representative  of  God  on 
earth,  to  speak  his  word  and  to  exercise  his  power  until  the 
time  of  that  second  coming,  it  naturally  took  on  that  shape 
which  it  assumed  along  in  the  second,  third,  fourth,  and 
fifth  centuries,  until  it  culminated  at  last  in  a  mighty  despot- 
ism during  the  Middle  Ages.  It  was  a  natural  transforma- 
tion, a  perfectly  natural  growth.  The  church  then  came  to 
be  an  organization  that  claimed  to  be  the  voice  and  the 
representative  of  God  on  earth.  They  put  forth  the  claim 
that  the  spirit  of  God  abode  in  this  organization,  that  this 
was  a  body  corporate,  whose  soul  was  the  very  spirit  of  the 
Almighty.  He,  therefore,  who  became  a  member  of  this 
body  became  a  partaker  of  this  divine  life  ;  and  he  who  was 
cut  off  from  it  was  cut  off  from  all  human  sympathy  in  this 
world  and  from  all  divine  sympathy  in  the  next.  You  can 
see,  then,  very  easily,  since  this  represented  the  majority 
belief  of  the  civilized  world,  how  naturally  the  church  be- 
came the  mightiest  spiritual  despotism  that  the  world  has 


142  Religions  Reconstruction 

ever  seen.  It  claimed  to  dominate  the  entire  life  of  human- 
ity. Kings  were  glad  to  kneel  at  the  feet  of  the  pope  and 
recognize  him  as  the  present  deputy  of-  God  on  earth,  to  go 
on  his  errands  and  to  execute  his  will.  So  the  church 
became  a  mighty  power  that  grasped  and  moulded  human 
life  at  will,  that  held  in  its  hands  this  world  and  the  next, — 
such  a  power  as  no  universal  empire  like  that  of  ancient 
Rome  could  ever  hope  to  rival  in  the  magnificence  of  its 
ideas  and  the  sweep  of  its  power. 

But  the  church,  drunk  with  power,  arrogant,  cruel,  came 
at  last  to  attempt  to  do  such  things  as  God  himself  never 
attempted,  and,  though  he  should  attempt,  could  not  accom- 
plish. The  church,  at  last,  shocked  the  moral  sense  of 
Europe.  It  became  not  only  a  burden  on  its  physical  and 
political  life,  but  shocked  its  conscience,  so  that  they  began 
to  question  whether  this  could  be  the  divine  institution  that 
it  claimed.  For  it  attempted  to  assert  the  power  not  only 
to  forgive  sins,  but  to  dispense  people  beforehand  from  the 
necessity  of  righteousness,  and  to  sell  to  them  for  money  the 
privilege  of  committing  sins.  This  the  righteous  sense  of 
the  noble  men  and  women  of  the  time  could  no  longer  en- 
dure. So  there  came  the  Protestant  Reformation ;  and  the 
Bible  was  used  as  the  centre  and  fountain  of  all  authority 
instead  of  the  church. 

I  wish  you  to  notice  one  thing  in  regard  to  this  change : 
that  it  was  a  step  towards  rationalism,  a  step  towards  the 
supremacy  of  reason,  a  step  towards  the  acceptance  of  the 
scientific  method,  the  demand  for  proof,  of  belief  only  on 
the  best  evidence.  The  moment  that  the  Bible  was  made 
the  last  court  of  appeal,  there  came  up  the  question  as  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  Bible,  and  so  a  doorway  opened 
for  the  use  of  reason  as  the  supreme  faculty  of  man ;  and, 
though  they  claimed  the  Bible  as  supreme,  in  spite  of  that 


The  Old  CJiiircli  and  tJie  Neiv  143 

claim,  it  was  reason  and  evidence  that  determined  the  nature 
of  the  Bible,  its  contents,  and  what  it  should  be  supposed  to 
teach  mankind  in  the  name  of  God.  So,  though  the  church 
still  claimed  to  represent  God,  though  it  still  claimed  to  have 
in  its  hands  the  conditions  of  human  salvation,  though  it  still 
claimed  that  men  must  be  members  of  it  in  order  to  cherish 
rightly  an  eternal  hope,  the  moment  reason  was  made  the 
tinal  court  of  appeal,  and  allowed  to  adjudicate  concerning 
the  claims  of  the  Bible,  modern  rationalism  was  something 
that  could  not  be  prevented  ;  it  was  inevitable.  The  church, 
then,  has  inevitably  split  up  into  a  hundred,  almost  a  thou- 
sand sects ;  and,  in  their  mutual  war  upon  each  other,  they 
have  destroyed  all  possible  claims  to  the  infallibility  of  any 
one  of  them.  At  last,  the  mind  of  man  is  coming  to  be  free. 
It  has  shaken  off  this  spiritual  despotism;  and  now  each 
man  for  himself  dares  to  think  concerning  God  and  concern- 
ing his  own  nature,  and  to  assume  the  responsibility  for  his 
life  in  this  world  and  in  all  worlds. 

Here,  then,  is  the  point  to  which  the  church  has  come, — 
the  point  that  is  indicated  in  my  opening  words;  and  we  are 
face  to  face  with  the  question  whether  the  church  is  to  pass 
away  with  the  passing  away  of  these  old  ideas  with  which  it 
has  been  so  long  identified  or  whether  there  is  something  in 
human  nature  that  still  demands  this  kind  of  expression 
for  itself.  I  believe  that,  as  the  old  Christian  Church  was 
evolved  out  of  the  Jewish  synagogue,  so  we  to-day  are  in 
the  very  midst  of  a  process  of  evolution  into  a  new  and 
higher  and  better  church  than  the  old.  I  still  use  the  word 
"church,"  because  I  love  it,  because  in  its  clear  meaning  it 
is  so  simple,  so  human,  so  natural,  and  because  I  know  of  no 
better  name. 

Let  us  look,  then,  and  see  whether  there  be  any  basis  for 
the  continued  existence  of  the  church.  It  seems  to  me  that 


144  Religions  Reconstruction 

there  is  a  basis  as  broad  as  the  world  and  as  eternal  as 
human  nature,  and  it  is  this :  the  permanently  essential 
religious  nature  of  man.  Man  is  a  religious  animal.  Above 
and  beyond  all  other  qualities  and  characteristics  that  dis- 
tinguish him  he  is  religious.  This  is  true  now,  and  has 
been  in  all  ages,  and  must  continue  to  be.  People  who  are 
interested  in  any  one  subject  naturally  organize  themselves 
into  some  external  expression  of  it.  There  are  art  associa- 
tions, scientific  societies,  philosophical  societies.  Business 
men  organize  for  the  carrying  on  of  their  plans.  Wher- 
ever men  have  interests  in  common  which  they  can  attain 
better  by  common  action,  their  organization  is  natural  and 
inevitable ;  and  so  I  believe  that  as  men  are  religious, 
always  have  been,  always  must  be,  and  that  as  this,  in  spite 
of  all  considerations  that  may  be  adduced  to  the  contrary, 
is  the  very  highest  interest  of  human  life,  so  I  believe  that 
people  will  necessarily  organize  themselves  in  this  way.  It 
may  call  itself  by  a  different  name  ;  but  in  essence  and  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  it  must  and  will  be  a  church. 

Now  let  us  consider  for  a  moment  what  are  some  of  the 
common  ends  and  aims  that  necessitate  this  organization, 
that  make  it  natural,  human,  rational. 

In  the  first  place,  a  church  attempts  to  express  the  fact 
that  all  men  and  women  are  dependent  on  God.  They  may 
not  think  of  it  under  those  terms  ;  but  all  men  and  all  women, 
if  they  think  at  all,  must  recognize  the  fact  that  they  do 
stand  in  dependent,  vital  relations  to  the  Power  that  was 
here  before  them,  that  will  be  here  after  they  have  gone,  that 
surrounds  them  like  an  atmosphere, —  a  Power  in  which  they 
live  and  move  and  have  their  being,  that  is  above  them, 
behind  them,  that  touches  them  on  the  right  hand  and  on 
the  left,  that  they  face  at  every  moment,  that  they  never  can 
escape ;  a  Power  to  which  the  light  and  the  darkness  are  both 


The  Old  Church  and  the  New  145 

alike ,  a  Power,  the  laws  of  whose  life  are  the  conditions  of 
all  human  life,  physical,  mental,  moral,  spiritual.  They 
must  recognize  the  fact  that  it  is  in  the  knowledge  of  this 
Power  and  the  relations  in  which  we  stand  to  it  that  lies  the 
secret  of  all  happiness,  all  growth,  all  nobleness,  all  that  we 
may  hope  for  or  attain.  What  has  been  more  natural,  more 
rational,  more  simple,  more  human,  more  divine,  than  an  or- 
ganization that  has  for  its  aim  and  end  the  study  of  this 
Power,  and  the  relation  in  which  we  stand  to  it, —  the  study, 
in  other  words,  of  the  very  conditions  of  life  itself  ? 

Then  that  other  quality  in  all  noble  natures, —  in  all  natures 
I  will  say,  leaving  out  the  word  "noble,"  but  more  highly  mani- 
fested in  the  noble, —  that  tendency  to  worship,  the  feeling 
of  awe,  of  reverence,  of  looking  towards  that  which  is  above 
and  beyond  us.  By  as  much  as  a  man  is  noble,  whether  he 
thinks  of  it  or  not,  whether  he  knows  it  or  not,  whether  he 
calls  it  by  that  name  or  not,  he  is  and  he  must  be  a  wor- 
shipper; for  worship  means  just  this  uplift  and  uplook  of  the 
soul  towards  the  more  beautiful,  towards  the  truer,  the  higher, 
the  nobler,  towards  the  ever  elusive  ideal  that  haunts  us,  that 
we  have  not  grasped  as  yet,  that,  ever  following,  we  do  come 
into  the  presence  of  something  higher  and  better.  What, 
then,  more  simple,  what  more  rational,  human,  divine,  than 
that  people  should  meet  together  to  help  each  other,  to  in- 
spire and  stimulate  each  other  in  this  religious,  the  highest 
and  grandest,  quality  of  the  human  soul  ? 

Then  the  church,  if  it  be  a  true  one,  represents  that  uni- 
versal human  longing  for  an  organization  which  the  world 
has  dreamed  of,  which  poets  have  sung,  whfch  prophets  have 
foretold,  but  which  has  never  yet  been  realized  except  in 
part, —  the  organization  of  that  perfect  democracy  of  human 
life  in  which  men  and  women  shall  meet,  if  it  be  only  for 
one  hour  a  week,  simply  as  men  and  women,  in  the  pres- 


146  Religious  Reconstruction 

ence  of  the  divine  and  the  eternal,  being  shamed  out  of  the 
pettinesses  and  the  littlenesses  of  these  trivial,  passing  hu- 
man distinctions  that  we  count  so  great  from  the  stand-point 
of  our  ordinary  society.  There  is  something  in  men  and 
women  deeper  than  their  income,  something  deeper  than 
the  houses  they  live  in,  something  deeper  than  the  clothes 
they  wear,  something  deeper  than  the  culture  they  may  have 
attained,  than  the  books  they  have  read,  something  deeper 
than  their  artistic  tastes,  something  deeper  than  any  of  these 
things  on  which  we  found  our  distinctions  of  caste.  There 
is  that  essential  quality  that  makes  us  men  and  women,  chil- 
dren of  the  one  eternal,  universal  Spirit;  and  it  is  well  that 
one  hour  a  week,  if  no  more,  we  should  meet  together  in 
the  consciousness  of  a  presence  in  the  light  of  which  these 
things  fade  out,  and  we  are  men  and  women  only.  This 
finds  expression  better  than  anywhere  else  in  a  true  church. 
If  men  forget  themselves  nowhere  else,  they  will  do  it  in  the 
presence  of  that  eternal  Power  which  makes  all  these  con- 
siderations vanity  and  folly. 

Then  again,  however  strong  we  may  be,  owever  self- 
contained,  there  are  times  when  the  child  in  us  asserts 
itself,  when  we  are  weak,  when  our  feet  become  weary  and 
our  hearts  are  discouraged,  and  the  way  of  life  is  hard. 
Then  we  need  the  help,  the  comfort,  the  sympathy,  of  our 
fellow-men.  There  are  times  when,  though  perfectly  well 
aware  that  a  sympathetic  word  or  a  warm  hand-clasp  cannot 
take  the  burden  off  the  heart,  they  do  still  help  us  to  bear 
it.  They  make  us  stronger,  they  give  us  courage,  they  help 
our  belief  in  the  reality  of  that  infinite  and  eternal  tender- 
ness and  care  of  which  they  are  only  glimpses  and  out- 
shinings.  And  we  need  an  organization  like  this,  where  we 
can  touch  hands,  feel  the  touch  of  each  other's  shoulders, 
as  we  stand  side  by  side  in  the  sympathy  of  a  common  pur- 
pose, common  hopes,  common  aims. 


The  Old  Church  and  the  Neiv  147 

I  have  led  you  along,  if  you  have  followed  my  thought 
sympathetically,  where  you  are  ready  to  apprehend  what  I 
believe  to  be  the  truth, —  that  a  true  church  is  not  something 
to  be  apologized  for,  concerning  which  a  man  should  be 
half-ashamed  when  he  finds  himself  interested  in  it.  I  know 
men  who,  because  of  their  interest  in  a  special  minister  or 
some  special  cause  which  the  church  has  at  heart,  have 
suddenly  found  themselves  interested  in  the  church  itself; 
and  they  expect  that,  as  they  go  along  the  street,  some 
of  their  comrades  will  smile  at  them  and  wonder  what  it 
all  means,  showing  thus  how  petty,  how  poor,  how  trivial, 
how  one-sided  the  conception  of  the  church  and  of  church 
life  has  been  in  their  own  minds  and  in  the  minds  of  their 
comrades. 

What  is  a  church  ?  What  is  its  chief  aim  ?  What  is  its 
nature  ?  A  church  is  an  organization  of  men  and  of  women 
for  the  purpose  of  helping  each  other  to  live  the  divine  — 
that  is,  the  noblest  conceivable  human  —  life.  The  church 
is  the  only  institution  on  the  face  of  the  earth  that  stands 
for  the  very  highest  thing  of  which  we  can  dream.  So 
grand,  so  high  is  it,  as  I  estimate  it,  that  all  other  human 
institutions,  all  other  human  organizations,  all  arts,  all  sci- 
ences, can  only  be  its  servants.  Art  may  cultivate  a  certain 
side  of  man.  We  may  call  in  the  aid  of  art  to  decorate  and 
beautify  human  life;  but  the  church  means  human  life  itself. 
We  may  call  in  the  aid  of  science  to  teach  us  the  facts  con- 
cerning the  visible  universe,  the  organization  and  care  of 
our  bodies,  to  teach  us  how  to  act,  what  to  think,  how  to  feel, 
how  to  live ;  but  science  in  its  very  highest  manifestations 
can  do  no  grander  thing  than  serve  the  purposes  for  which  a 
noble  church  exists.  It  is  simply  to  minister  to  the  idea  that 
the  church  represents.  Literature  may  help  to  express  the 
life,  to  enrich  the  ritual,  the  service,  of  the  church.  It  may 


148  Religious  Reconstruction 

help  as  a  manifestation  of  the  intellectual  and  emotional  side 
of  human  nature ;  but  the  church  which  is  alive  itself  is  for- 
ever beyond  and  includes  all  literature,  and  would  simply  use 
it  as  an  aid  to  that  grander  thing  for  which  it  stands.  And 
so  music.  The  church  may  call  on  it  to  help  it  give  inartic- 
ulate utterance  to  those  feelings  too  subtle,  too  far  beyond 
present  experiences,  to  be  expressed  in  definite  terms ;  but 
music  is  only  a  handmaid  to  human  life,  that  thing  which 
is  at  the  very  heart,  which  is  the  soul  of  the  church.  And 
so  all  other  departments  of  human  life  and  human  activity 
are  only  fragments,  parts  of  human  life ;  while  the  church, 
if  it  be  rightly  and  nobly  organized,  is  that  one  thing  which 
helps  men  to  live,  using  everything  else,  or  subordinating 
them,  to  that  one  thing  which  is  higher  than  them  all.  For 
something  grander  than  art,  than  literature,  than  science, 
than  music,  than  philanthropy,  than  anything  the  world  ever 
dreamed  of  or  can  ever  dream  of,  is  the  manhood  which 
creates  and  uses  all  these.  The  true  church  is  the  organi 
zation  of  the  highest  manhood  and  womanhood  for  the  sake 
of  mutual  help  and  growth  towards  still  grander  manhood 
and  womanhood. 

What,  now,  is  the  relation  in  which  those  things  which  are 
ordinarily  associated  with  religion  stand  to  the  church  as 
thus  conceived  ?  Has  this  church  a  bible  ?  Yes,  all  bibles. 
Every  truth  that  bears  on  human  life  is  a  part  of  the  bible 
of  this  church  of  which  I  am  speaking. 

Will  this  church  have  a  creed  ?  It  cannot  help  it.  It 
must  of  necessity.  If  it  be  clear  in  its  thought,  if  it  have 
certain  definite  conceptions  of  God,  of  man  and  destiny, — 
these  will  constitute  a  creed,  whether  it  ever  be  written  or 
not ;  but  the  place  for  the  creed  will  be  over  the  pulpit,  as 
a  statement  to  be  studied,  as  an  ideal  to  be  approached  as 
rapidly  as  possible,  not  as  a  gate  at  the  entrance  to  be 


The  Old  Church  and  the  New  149 

locked  in  the  faces  of  those  who  otherwise  would  be  glad 
to  enter. 

Will  this  church  pray  ?  It  cannot  help  it.  For  whether 
men  and  women  utter  it  or  not,  breathe  it  or  not,  every  de- 
sire, every  upward  aspiration,  is  a  prayer. 

Will  this  church  have  a  ritual  ?  It  may  or  it  may  not,  as 
happens.  Any  formula  of  service,  any  order,  any  ritual,  any 
sacrament  or  rite  of  any  kind,  which  any  body  of  men  and 
women  find  to  be  so  vitally  related  to  their  condition  that  it 
can  help  them,  may  be  naturally  and  freely  used. 

I  said,  a  moment  ago,  that  the  belief  in  the  church  as 
a  divinely  established  institution  was  passing  away.  I  meant 
that  only  in  accordance  with  the  terms  as  they  have  been 
used.  If  you  will  think  for  a  moment  that  God  is  the  source 
of  all  our  human  life,  that  it  is  God  in  us,  in  this  religious 
nature  of  ours,  that  is  lifting  us  towards  himself, —  if  you 
think  for  a  moment  that  these  natural  tendencies  of  ours 
towards  organization  and  mutual  help  is  God  present  and 
working  in  and  through  us, —  then  you  will  gain  a  glimpse  of 
that  grander  thought  which  was  attempted  to  be  expressed, 
but  was  only  partially  expressed,  in  the  past, —  the  thought 
that  the  church,  this  natural,  rational,  human  organization,  is 
based  eternally  in  the  divine.  And  so  the  church,  in  this 
sense,  is  a  divine  institution,  and,  by  way  of  emphasis,  the 
divinest  institution  of  which  we  can  dream. 

Now,  such  a  church  as  this  has  existed  in  potency,  in 
promise,  at  least,  in  all  ages.  All  men  and  all  women  in 
all  the  past  who,  according  to  the  best  light  they  had,  have 
been  feeling  after  God  if  haply  they  might  find  him,  have 
been  members  of  this  church,  no  matter  whether  in  Chris- 
tendom or  out  of  it,  no  matter  of  what  race  or  age.  All  the 
men  and  all  the  women  who  have  consecrated  themselves 
to  the  attainment  of  their  highest  ideals,  who  have  sacri- 


150  Religious  Reconstruction 

ficed  themselves  for  the  service  of  their  fellow-men,  who 
have  given  themselves  to  this  lift  of  the  God  within  them 
which  bears  them  on  towards  better  things, —  all  these  have 
been  members  of  this  church.  And  this  church,  I  believe, 
under  some  form  or  name,  will  go  on  increasing  in  power  as 
humanity  becomes  higher  and  better,  and  will  cease  to  exist 
only  as  it  comes  to  full  and  perfect  expression,  dying  in  the 
attainment  of  that  which  needs  no  farther  effort  to  attain. 

As  voicing  sweetly  this  universality  of  the  genuine  relig- 
ious life  of  the  world,  I  want  to  read  the  following  beautiful 
hymn  by  Samuel  Longfellow:  — 

One  holy  Church  of  God  appears 

Through  every  age  and  race, 
Unwasted  by  the  lapse  of  years, 

Unchanged  by  changing  place. 

From  oldest  time,  on  farthest  shores, 

Beneath  the  pine  or  palm, 
One  Unseen  Presence  she  adores, 

With  silence  or  with  psalm. 

Her  priests  are  all  God's  faithful  sons, 

To  serve  the  world  raised  up ; 
The  pure  in  heart,  her  baptized  ones ; 

Love,  her  communion-cup. 

The  truth  is  her  prophetic  gift, 

The  soul  her  sacred  page ; 
And  feet  on  mercy's  errands  swift 

Do  make  her  pilgrimage. 

O  living  Church,  thine  errand  speed; 

Fulfil  thy  task  sublime  ; 
With  bread  of  life  earth's  hunger  feedj 

Redeem  the  evil  time  1 


THE  END  OF  THE  WORLD. 


I  SHALL  have  to  engage  during  this  morning  hour  not  in 
argument  to  any  great  extent,  not  in  appeal  to  your  reason, 
not  in  attempt  to  move  your  emotions ;  for  the  subject  will 
not  require  it.  The  principal  thing  I  have  to  do  is  rather 
descriptive  and  historical.  And  yet  it  is  necessary  that  I 
cover  this  theme,  in  order  to  make  the  line  of  thought  In 
which  at  present  I  am  engaged  more  nearly  complete.  The 
reason  why  I  shall  not  appeal  to  your  reason  or  your  emo- 
tions is  not  because  the  topics  which  I  shall  take  up  have  not 
occupied  a  large  place  in  the  history  of  Christian  thought, 
but  because  —  however  large  the  place  which  they  have 
occupied  —  they  are  ceasing  to  be  treated  in  a  serious 
manner  by  the  larger  part,  at  least,  of  the  pulpits  of  those 
churches  that  still  cling,  in  the  main,  to  the  old  ideas. 

I  wish,  under  this  general  title  of  "  The  End  of  the 
World,"  to  group  together  certain  things  that  have  no  logical 
connection,  but  that  belong  to  this  period  that  the  Church, 
until  within  the  past  few  years,  has  looked  forward  to  as 
certain  to  come.  If  the  Church  believed  these  things  as  it 
did  five  hundred  years  ago,  I  should  need  to  treat  each  one 
of  them  at  length,  to  argue  and  appeal  concerning  them; 
but  they  are  fading  out  of  the  conscious  thought,  fading  out 
of  the  vital  belief  of  the  world,  and  therefore  I  can  group 
them  all  together,  giving  thus  a  general  picture  of  what  the 
Church  once  held,  and  what,  indeed,  a  good  many  ministers 
still  hold. 


152  Religious  Reconstruction 

The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  divide  all  time  into  two 
great  epochs,  the  one  preceding  and  the  one  following  the 
Messianic  advent,  this  advent  being  to  them  the  turning- 
point  of  time.  They  believed  that  death  was  not  a  part  of 
the  original  plan  of  the  Creator, —  that  it  came  into  the 
world  as  the  result  of  a  certain  spiritual  catastrophe  that 
produced  its  effect  not  only  upon  the  body  of  man,  making 
that  mortal  which  was  immortal  before,  but  on  the  entire 
face  of  the  created  world.  They  believed  that,  as  the  result 
of  the  fall  of  man,  not  only  did  man  himself  cease  to  possess 
his  birthright  of  immortality,  but  that  the  earth  was  cursed 
for  his  sake, —  that  thorns  and  briers  sprang  up  where  only 
flowers  and  fruits  had  been  before,  that  animals  which  had 
been  peaceable  in  their  natures  were  changed  into  beasts  of 
prey, —  so  that  there  was  discord  throughout  the  whole  earth. 
But  they  believed  that  when  the  Messiah  came  there  was  to 
be  a  transformation, —  that  the  world  was  to  be  made  over 
into  its  former  perfect  likeness,  the  thorns  and  the  briers 
were  to  disappear,  the  wolf  and  the  lamb  were  to  lie  down 
together  in  peace,  the  lion  was  to  lose  his  carnivorous  nature 
and  be  changed  even  in  physical  structure,  so  that  he  would 
eat  straw  like  an  ox ;  and  all  harmful  things  were  to  become 
innocent,  and  the  earth  was  to  be  once  more  a  scene  of 
beauty  and  of  peace.  The  coming  of  the  Messiah  was  to  be 
the  complete  recovery  of  all  that  had  been  lost. 

When  the  Christian  Church  came,  inheriting  a  certain 
amount  of  the  old  thought  of  the  old  world,  and  adding  to 
it  much  of  its  own,  it  still  held  to  the  idea  not  only  of  the 
birth  of  the  Messiah,  but  of  his  second  coming.  I  suppose 
that  the  early  disciples  of  Jesus  expected  that,  if  he  proved 
himself  to  be  the  true  Messiah,  then  this  wondrous  transfor- 
mation was  to  take  place  then  and  there.  Jerusalem  was  to 
become  the  centre  and  glory  of  the  earth.  All  evil  was  to 


The  End  of  the    World  153 

be  done  away.  All  peoples  were  to  become  subject  to  his 
sceptre  of  peace.  We  find  expressions  of  disappointment 
on  the  part  of  the  disciples  after  Jesus  had  been  crucified. 
You  remember  the  two  who  are  represented  as  walking  to- 
gether on  one  quiet  evening  towards  the  little  town  of 
Emmaus,  discussing  what  had  taken  place  ;  and  one  of  them 
said,  "  We  trusted  this  had  been  he  who  was  to  have  re- 
deemed Israel," —  as  much  as  to  say,  We  have  been  disap- 
pointed :  we  trusted ;  but  he  who  was  to  have  been  the 
conqueror  is  himself  conquered,  and  our  hopes  were  vain. 
They  expected,  then,  this  transformation  of  the  world  at  the 
time  of  his  advent.  But  after  his  crucifixion, —  after  they 
had  come  to  believe  that  he  was  alive  again,  and  had  only 
disappeared  temporarily  into  the  heavens, —  then  sprang  up 
the  belief  in  the  second  advent.  He  was  to  come  again,  and 
come  with  power  and  great  glory,  accompanied  by  angels, 
preceded  by  trumpeting  heralds.  And  these  trumpet  sounds 
were  to  reach  even  the  "dull,  cold  ear  of  death";  for  the 
dead  were  to  listen,  and  the  graves  were  to  tremble  and 
open  and  release  their  inhabitants.  This,  then,  was  the 
general  belief, —  that  Jesus  was  to  come  again,  and  that,  at 
the  second  coming,  this  wonderful  transformation  was  to 
take  place, —  the  transformation  in  which  the  Jews  had  afore- 
time had  faith. 

This  belief  was  general  in  the  early  church.  It  has  left 
its  finger-mark  from  beginning  to  end  on  the  New  Testament. 
I  marvel  how  anybody  can  read  it,  and  not  see  the  traces 
plainly.  I  marvel  how  any  one  can  read  the  sayings  of 
Jesus  himself,  and  not  see  his  literal  faith  in  this  literal 
coming  for  the  renewal  of  the  world.  It  was  to  be  a 
miraculous  coining,  and  to  have  miraculous  results.  He  was 
to  come  suddenly,  as  a  thief  in  the  night,  and  choose  the 
elect  from  the  four  winds  of  heaven,  gathering  them  to- 


154  Religious  Reconstruction 

gether  as  the  wheat  is  selected  from  the  chaff,  so  that  it 
may  be  destroyed,  and  they  gathered  into  the  garner.  And 
we  find  this  belief  emphasized  by  such  side  touches  as  this. 
Some  one  had  evidently  asked  Paul  the  question,  Since  the 
delay  of  this  reappearance,  for  we  supposed  it  was  coming 
before  anybody  died, —  but  since  the  delay,  since  one  after 
another  of  those  who  expected  Christ  has  died,  then  what? 
Are  not  they  to  share  in  the  glory  of  these  thousand  years* 
reign  of  perfect  peace  ?  And  Paul  answers  the  question 
definitely.  He  says :  Do  not  be  troubled  in  regard  to  this 
matter.  When  Jesus  appears  in  the  heavens,  those  dead 
who  have  believed  in  him  will  be  raised  incorruptible ;  and 
we  who  are  alive  will  be  changed  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye 
at  the  last  trump,  and,  being  clothed  upon  with  our  celestial 
bodies,  will  be  ready  to  enter  into  this  perfect  kingdom. 
This  reign  of  Christ  was  to  last  a  thousand  years,  and  during 
that  time  nobody  was  to  die.  There  were  to  be  no  tears,  no 
sorrow,  no  pain ;  and  the  whole  earth  was  to  be  clothed  with 
beauty  and  joy,  in  keeping  with  the  gladness  of  the  hearts 
of  the  redeemed. 

You  see  on  what  a  small  scale  the  world  was  gauged  at 
that  time.  They  believed  that  it  had  been  in  existence 
something  like  five  or  six  thousand  years, —  years  of  toil 
and  struggle  and  sorrow  and  sin, —  corresponding  to  the  six 
days  of  labor  in  the  week ;  and  that  was  to  be  followed  by 
a  Sabbath  of  a  thousand  years,  the  millennium, —  a  thousand 
years  of  peace  and  rest  from  all  turmoil,  from  all  that  had 
disturbed  the  joy  of  human  life.  This  belief  was  held  so 
vividly  by  the  early  Church  that,  time  and  time  again,  there 
was  panic  over  Christendom ;  and  everybody  was  in  expecta- 
tion of  the  immediate  opening  of  the  heavens.  And,  when 
the  year  one  thousand  struck,  there  was  wide-spread  dismay ; 
for  they  believed  that  then,  at  any  rate,  the  end  was  to  be. 


The  End  of  the    World  155 

It  was  only  a  few  years  ago  that  a  great  convention  was 
held,  in  one  of  our  large  towns,  of  ministers  who  still  cherish 
this  belief.  Prominent  men  from  all  the  large  cities  of  the 
country  were  present.  This  belief  is  held  and  taught  by 
men  like  Mr.  Moody ;  and  it  is  for  this  reason  that  he  does 
not  believe  that  we  are  to  work  for  the  general  civilization 
of  the  world.  He  thinks  that  that  is  a  hopeless  thing,  that 
what  we  are  to  do  is  to  save  as  many  men  and  women  —  in- 
dividuals —  as  we  can,  and  get  them  ready  to  meet  the  Lord 
in  the  air.  And  this  belief  has  ample  justification;  for  the 
New  Testament  is  full  of  it.  And  yet  we,  since  we  have 
learned  the  course  of  history,  look  upon  it  as  a  passing 
dream.  We  believe,  indeed,  in  something  quite  as  fine  as 
the  millennium  with  the  forces  now  at  work :  that  they  will 
issue  in  a  glorified  humanity,  in  which  brain  and  conscience 
and  heart  are  supreme,  when  man  shall  be  skilled  in  thought, 
efficient  in  hand  and  in  all  executive  powers,  so  he  will  be 
able  to  control  and  shape  the  world  at  his  will.  So  science 
looks  forward  to  something  more  than  a  millennium,  more 
than  a  thousand  years  of  human  conquest,  over  a  globe 
recreated  in  the  image  of  the  highest  thought  and  the 
highest  beauty  and  the  highest  hope  for  all  mankind. 

Passing  now  from  this  thought  of  the  millennium  —  for, 
as  I  warned  you  at  the  outset,  I  am  to  group  together  many 
of  those  things  which  made  up  the  grand  scenic  display  with 
which  the  world  was  to  come  to  its  consummation  —  let  me 
touch  for  a  moment  on  the  thoughts  that  have  been  held 
concerning  the  fact  of  death.  I  have  told  you  what  the 
Jews  thought  about  it.  I  have  only  to  repeat  that  in  sub- 
stance to  tell  you  what  Christendom  has  thought.  It  was 
generally  held  that,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  he  had  a  mate- 
rial body,  man  was  immortal ;  that  the  plan  of  God  was  that 
men  and  women  should  live  here  on  this  earth  for  a  long 


156  Religious  Reconstruction 

period  of  time,  a  period  perhaps  figured  by  the  report  as  to 
the  ages  of  some  of  the  old  patriarchs,  five,  six,  or  seven 
hundred,  or  a  thousand  years.  Then  some  marvellous  and 
sudden  change  was  to  come  over  them,  fitting  them  to  be 
translated  into  that  sphere  that  we  speak  of  as  spiritual. 
Death  was  a  penalty,  an  afterthought  of  God.  It  came  as 
a  judgment  upon  men  on  account  of  their  sins.  But,  as  the 
world  became  more  and  more  wicked  with  the  process  of 
years,  the  period  of  human  life  was  shortened ;  and  men,  lest 
they  should  develop  into  too  great  depravity,  were  permitted 
to  live  only  three  or  four  score  years  of  labor  and  sorrow, 
which  were  soon  cut  off,  and  they  vanished  away.  We  know 
to-day  that  this  is  an  unfounded  view  as  to  the  origin  and 
meaning  of  death.  The  Church  was  startled  into  another 
thought  about  it  when  geology  discovered  in  the  record  of 
the  rocks,  where  God's  own  hand  had  written  it,  that  death 
has  been  on  this  old  earth  of  ours  for  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  years.  And,  that  you  may  know  that  the  change  is  not 
very  ancient,  I  may  say  that  I  was  taught  by  my  professor 
in  the  theological  seminary  that  this  fact  of  death  having 
existed  before  Adam  was  on  account  of  God's  pre-perception 
of  the  fact  that  man  would  sin.  So  he  ordained  death  on 
the  part  of  the  lower  creation,  that  it  might  be  in  harmony 
with  that  which  should  take  place  afterwards.  By  this  inter- 
pretation, death  still  remained  a  penalty  that  was  inflicted 
on  even  the  animal  world  on  account  of  the  sin  of  Adam ; 
and  the  earth  was  cursed  on  his  account,  so  that  it  might  be 
a  fitting  scene  for  the  display  of  those  qualities  of  evil  and 
wrong  which  were  to  be  developed. 

The  next  point  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  is 
one  that  has  played  a  large  part  in  the  history  of  theological 
thought;  i.e.,  the  "intermediate  state."  The  question  came 
up  naturally,  since  they  believed  in  the  resurrection  of  the 


The  End  of  the    World  157 

body  and  the  general  judgment,  as  to  what  became  of  the 
soul  between  the  time  of  the  death  of  the  body  and  the  final 
consummation  of  all  things.  We  are  accustomed  to-day  to 
think  —  those  of  us  who  believe  in  a  future  life  at  all  —  that 
this  life  continues  right  on  in  spite  of  the  apparent  break 
which  we  call  death.  We  are  accustomed  to  think  of  it  as 
no  more  than  a  night's  sleep.  We  lie  down  at  night,  become 
unconscious,  for  what  to  us,  no  matter  how  long  the  sleep 
may  be,  is  only  a  moment;  and  we  wake  again.  There  is  no 
break  :  the  night  does  not  change  us.  We  rise  in  the  morn- 
ing what  we  were  when  we  sank  into  unconscious  slumber. 
So  we  think  about  the  soul.  It  passes  into  its  fitting  con- 
dition, determined  by  the  nature  and  the  character  of  the 
soul  itself.  In  other  words,  if  a  man  believes  to-day  in 
heaven  and  in  hell,  he  believes  that  the  souls  of  the  dead 
go  at  once,  without  waiting  for  anything  else  to  happen, 
either  to  the  one  or  to  the  other  place,  according  to  which 
their  destiny  points  them. 

But  are  you  aware  how  very  modern  all  this  thought  is  ? 
It  is  only  within  a  few  years  that  the  Church  has  taught  any 
such  doctrine.  The  "  intermediate  state  "  played  a  very  im- 
portant part  throughout  the  larger  portion  of  Christian  his- 
tory. Let  me  lead  to  it  by  asking  you  to  think  for  a  moment 
of  the  condition  of  mind  of  the  ancient  world.  In  Greece, 
it  never  occurred  to  those  who  believed  in  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  to  suppose  that  the  dead,  however  virtuous  they 
might  be,  went  to  live  with  the  gods.  When  a  man  died,  he 
did  not  go  to  Olympus.  Jupiter  and  his  celestial  court,  or 
some  especial  favorite  whom  he  might  have  selected  from 
among  the  great  masses  of  mankind,  were  the  inhabitants  of 
the  celestial  sphere.  He  went  to  Hades, —  the  bad  and  the 
good  together.  What  was  Hades  ?  It  was  a  sort  of  under- 
ground cavern,  a  world  of  comparative  twilight.  It  was 


158  Religious  Reconstruction 

going  away  from  the  blue  sky,  from  the  fair  sun,  from  all  the 
greenness  and  beauty  of  the  world, —  going  down  into  the 
shadow-world.  But  this  shadow-world  was  not  all  alike. 
There  was,  in  the  first  place,  a  sort  of  limbo,  where  people 
went  who  were  neither  very  bad  nor  very  good.  Then  there 
was  the  region  of  the  blest,  for  those  who  had  been  conspic- 
uous for  their  goodness  and  the  service  they  had  rendered 
to  mankind.  Then  there  was  Tartarus,  the  place  of  torment 
where  those  who  had  abused  their  manhood  or  their  woman- 
hood, who  had  been  false  or  traitorous  to  their  fellow-men, 
who  had  been  conspicuous  by  the  evils  they  had  done,  met 
their  doom.  The  Church  inherited  precisely  this  idea ;  and, 
until  comparatively  modern  times,  there  is  no  trace  in 
Christian  thought  of  the  belief  that  the  good  who  died  went 
to  heaven,  as  we  say  now.  When  Jesus  forgave  the  penitent 
thief  on  the  cross,  and  said  to  him,  "This  day  thou  shalt 
be  with  me  in  Paradise,"  he  did  not  mean  that  the  thief 
should  be  in  heaven  the  moment  he  expired.  Jesus  himself, 
according  to  the  popular  idea,  did  not  go  to  heaven.  He 
went  to  Hades  for  the  three  days  and  nights  preceding  his 
resurrection. 

And  so  the  Church  believed  almost  universally  in  this 
underground  abode  of  the  dead.  It  was  taught  in  the 
Middle  Ages  as  such  a  realistic  thing  that  some  would-be 
astronomers,  who  were  attempting  to  account  for  the  move- 
ment of  the  earth,. went  so  far  as  to  suppose  that,  as  volcanic 
eruptions  were  caused  by  the  attempt  to  turn  over  of  a  giant 
imprisoned  under  the  mountain,  so  the  very  movements  of 
the  earth  itself  were  caused  by  the  struggles  of  the  damned 
in  hell, —  hell  being  at  the  centre  of  the  terrestrial  globe.  It 
was  believed  then  that  good  and  bad  together  went  to  Hades 
immediately  after  death;  and  Hades  was  divided  into  Para- 
dise and  Gehenna.  You  must  remember  that  in  the  New 


The  End  of  the    World  159 

Testament,  in  almost  every  instance  where  the  word  "  hell " 
occurs,  it  is  Hades  in  the  Greek,  and  that  it  does  not  neces- 
sarily mean  a  place  of  torment.  This  penitent  thief  who 
was  forgiven  went  to  Hades,  but  to  that  part  of  it  called 
"Paradise,"  where  the  blessed  awaited  the  day  when  con- 
summate, perfect  blessedness  was  to  be  theirs. 

There  were  certain  sections  of  the  Church  that  believed  in 
the  sleep  of  the  soul ;  and,  that  you  may  know  that  I  am  not 
troubling  you  with  things  that  are  too  antique,  I  can  remem- 
ber, in  my  childhood,  with  perfect  distinctness  hearing  all 
these  questions  discussed,  hearing  one  person  express  the 
belief  that  his  friends  who  had  fallen  asleep  would  sleep 
until  the  resurrection,  unconscious.  Others  thought  that 
they  were  to  be  in  a  sort  of  partial  blessedness  until  their 
final  destiny  was  decided,  one  holding  one  view  and  an- 
other another.  You  will  find  these  thoughts  permeating 
nine-tenths  of  the  churches  of  Christendom  to-day.  This, 
then,  is  another  feature  of  that  great  group  which  sets  forth 
to  our  thought  what  was  to  be  at  the  end  of  the  world. 

Though  they  believed  that  this  planet  was  to  come  to  an 
end  at  that  time,  yet  the  New  Testament  phrase  does  not 
refer  so  much  to  the  destruction  of  this  earth  as  it  does  to 
the  end  of  a  great  cycle  of  time.  In  the  Greek,  it  is  the  end 
of  an  aeon, —  the  end  of  an  age,  the  end  of  this  general  dis- 
pensation of  affairs  and  the  beginning  of  a  new  and  grander 
cycle. 

Next,  of  course,  after  this  matter  of  death  and  the  inter- 
mediate state,  we  come  to  the  question  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body.  It  seems  perhaps  to  you  a  good  deal  like  antiq- 
uity for  me  to  spend  any  time  in  discussing  a  point  like 
this.  I  do  it,  not  in  the  way  of  argument  so  much  as  in  the 
way  of  description ;  and  yet  this  is  not  entirely  an  outworn 
belief.  Even  where  it  is  outgrown  in  the  vital  consciousness 


160  Religions  Reconstruction 

of  the  people  of  the  time,  it  still  stands  on  record  in  the 
creeds.  One  phrase  of  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  is  re- 
peated in  so  many  of  the  churches  of  Christendom  every 
Sunday  by  the  whole  congregation  together,  is,  "I  believe 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  body."  If  you  ask  the  minister  of 
a  church  if  he  believes  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body, 
ninety-nine  times  out  of  a  hundred,  perhaps  nine  hundred 
and  ninety-nine  times  out  of  a  thousand,  he  will  tell  you 
that  he  does  not.  He  has  learned  to  interpret  the  phrase, 
and  make  it  stand  simply  for  the  continuance  of  life.  He 
says  that  he  does  believe  in  the  resurrection  of  the  body; 
but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  believes  in  something  else,  and 
something  that  the  phrase  when  it  came  into  existence  in  the 
early  history  of  Christianity  never  suggested.  It  was  be- 
lieved thoroughly  by  the  Jews  that  the  Messianic  advent 
was  to  be  preceded  not  by  the  resurrection  of  everybody, 
but  by  the  resurrection  of  all  the  good ;  and  this  belief  was 
carried  so  far  that  it  was  thought  that  persons  living  in  a 
certain  district  of  Palestine  were  to  rise  first.  And  as  the 
Chinese,  at  the  present  time,  no  matter  where  they  may  die, 
wish  their  bones  to  repose  in  the  holy  land  from  which 
they  came,  so  the  devout  Jew  wished  to  have  his  body  car- 
ried from  any  point  of  the  earth  where  he  had  lived,  that  it 
might  be  buried  in  this  sacred  spot  and  be  among  those  who 
should  have  part  in  the  first  resurrection. 

Mr.  Spurgeon  and  men  like  him  preach  to-day  —  Mr.  Tal- 
mage  does  also  —  this  belief  in  the  literal  resurrection  of  the 
bodies  that  we  wear  here  on  earth.  Some  tell  us  that  the 
body  has  shared  in  the  sins  of  the  soul,  and  therefore  ought 
to  share  in  its  punishment.  They  tell  us  that  the  bodies 
of  the  saints  and  martyrs  have  shared  in  the  sorrows,  the 
struggles,  the  tears  and  heart-aches  of  the  soul,  and  there- 
fore ought  to  share  in  the  glory.  So  they  teach  that  God, 


The  End  of  the   World  161 

being  omnipotent  and  omniscient,  has  both  the  power  and 
the  wisdom  to  bring  this  wondrous  thing  to  pass;  that  he 
can  trace  all  over  the  world  the  slightest  dust  particles  that 
have  entered  into  the  body  of  the  saint,  and  at  the  right 
moment  bring  them  together  again.  Doubtless  many  of  the 
martyrs  have  been  burned,  their  ashes  cast  into  some  run- 
ning stream  that  took  them  down  to  the  river,  and  the  river 
to  the  sea,  so  that  they  have  gone  around  the  globe.  Doubt- 
less Almighty  Wisdom  is  able  to  trace  each  particle,  and 
Almighty  Power  is  able  to  collect  them  from  the  farthest  end 
of  the  world.  But  even  the  arguing  of  a  question  like  this 
before  a  modern  audience  seems  out  of  place,  and  almost 
absurd;  for  our  conception  of  what  continued  existence 
means  is  such  to-day  that  these  bodies  that  we  have  worn 
have  no  part  in  it.  But,  even  though  it  were  necessary  to 
argue  the  point,  it  seems  to  me  that  one  consideration  alone 
would  make  it  plain.  It  only  calls  for  a  simple  question  in 
arithmetic.  Each  one  of  us,  if  he  has  lived  threescore  years, 
has  worn  quite  a  number  of  distinct  and  separate  bodies,  as 
distinct  and  separate  as  the  suits  of  clothes  with  which  he 
has  warmed  and  protected  that  body.  One  of  these  bodies 
may  have  shared  with  the  soul  some  one  of  its  sins.  So,  if 
the  body  must  share  the  penalties  of  this  wrong-doing  with 
the  soul, —  if  the  body  has  to  share  the  glory  of  that  soul 
that  is  redeemed, —  then  all  these  separate  bodies  must  be 
brought  together  and  combined  in  some  strange  and  mon- 
strous way  into  one.  Then  not  only  that,  but  we  know  that 
the  particles  which  compose  the  bodies  which  we  are  wearing 
to-day,  and  with  which,  perchance,  we  may  die,  have  entered 
into  and  been  part  of  the  bodies  of  other  men  and  women. 
And  who  shall  have  these  particles,  to  enter  into  the  compo- 
sition of  his  resurrection-body  ? 

Furthermore,  we  know  that  when  we  compute  the  number 


1 62  Religious  Reconstruction 

of  people  who  have  been  born,  who  have  lived  and  who  have 
died  here  on  this  planet,  it  would  take  several  worlds  like 
this,  although  every  particle  of  matter  composing  it  were 
used,  to  furnish  material  for  the  manufacture  of  enough 
bodies  to  go  around.  The  slightest  consideration  of  a  ques- 
tion like  this  disposes  of  it,  except  in  the  case  of  those  who 
read  a  text  and  then  abdicate  their  brains  in  favor  of  the 
meaning  of  that  text,  and  say  that,  in  spite  of  reason  and 
fact,  it  must  be  true. 

We  believe  not  in  any  resurrection,  for  resurrection  means 
rising  again.  We  believe  rather  in  the  rise  of  a  soul  at 
death,  not  in  its  going  down  and  coming  back  again,  but  in 
its  ascent,  in  its  taking  the  next  step  forward  and  onward 
towards  its  final  destiny. 

One  point  more,  and  the  group  of  subjects  which  I  wish 
to  comprehend  under  this  one  general  theme  will  be  com- 
pleted; and  that  is  the  question  of  the  last  judgment. 

This,  also,  has  been  a  part  of  both  Jewish  and  of  Christian 
thought.  The  Christian  world  has  held  it,  preached  it,  sung 
it,  from  the  very  first.  And  it  preaches  and  sings  it  to-day. 
At  this  second  coming,  the  good  and  the  bad  are  to  be 
raised.  If  they  have  been  in  heaven,  they  are  temporarily 
to  leave  the  place  of  the  blessed.  If  they  have  been -in 
hell,  they  are  to  have  this  moment's  reprieve.  A  great  white 
throne  is  to  be  set  in  the  heavens.  Christ,  the  tender,  the 
blessed,  having  now  put  aside  his  tenderness,  except  for 
those  who  have  believed  in  him,  is  to  be  the  judge,  sitting 
on  that  throne.  All  the  people  who  have  ever  lived  are  to 
be  gathered  at  this  last  great  assize,  and  they  are  to  stand 
before  this  bar.  The  books  are  to  be  opened.  The  long 
centuries'  work  of  the  recording  angel,  who  is  supposed  to 
have  made  a  record  of  every  thought,  every  feeling,  every 
word,  every  action  of  every  man,  woman,  and  child  who  ever 


<?/  the    World  163 

lived,  from  the  time  they  were  born  until  they  died,  is  to 
be  read.  How  real  this  picture  was  made,  and  is  still  made, 
to  the  alarmed  consciousness  and  imagination  of  millions,  I 
can  witness  to  from  the  memories  of  my  own  childhood. 
One  of  the  earliest  things  that  I  can  remember  is  the  picture 
of  this  great  white  throne,  with  the  judge  upon  it ;  and  I 
supposed  through  all  my  childhood  that  everything  I  thought, 
or  ever  felt  or  ever  did,  was  in  some  miraculous  way,  as  in 
an  instant,  with  the  swiftness  of  a  flash  of  lightning,  to  be 
laid  open  and  made  plain  to  the  assembled  universe,  and  I 
to  be  overwhelmed  with  that  revelation,  or  else  to  have  it 
blotted  out  and  covered  out  of  sight  by  the  atoning  blood  of 
the  Redeemer.  That  was  the  alternative  with  which  my 
childish  mind  was  filled.  And  that  is  the  picture  to-day  in 
the  fancy  of  millions  of  Christendom. 

But  we  have  learned  not  that  there  is  no  judgment  day. 
We  have  learned  that  all  days  are  judgment  days.  We  have 
learned  that  every  thought  makes  its  invisible  record,  every 
feeling  leaves  its  trace,  every  deed  stands  a  part  of  the 
accomplished  fact  of  human  history.  And  we  know  that  the 
law  of  cause  and  effect  is  so  unintermittent,  so  efficient,  so 
constant,  that,  if  the  world  were  stopped  at  this  instant, 
there  would  be  in  the  result  at  that  moment  of  time  the 
complete  summing  up,  good  and  bad,  of  all  that  was.  Every 
day,  then,  is  a  judgment  day.  Every  cause  issues  in  its  legit- 
imate, its  inevitable  effect;  and  we  must  stand  before  the 
question  of  our  destiny  the  result  of  all  we  have  been,  and 
must  look  forward  to  a  future  to  be  dominated  by  what 
we  are,  or  to  be  a  new  starting-point  for  what  we  shall  be. 


THE  DESTINY  OF  THE  SOUL. 


IN  treating  this  theme,  I  shall  follow  the  plan  already 
adopted,  and  give  you,  first,  some  of  the  views  that  have 
been  held  by  the  old  faiths,  and  that  are  still  in  the  creeds, 
and  then  try  to  suggest  my  own  hope.  For  here,  as  you 
will  understand,  I  shall  not  claim  to  speak  with  authority. 
I  only  make  this  claim :  that  I  shall  say  nothing  that  any 
knowledge  contradicts,  or  seems  likely  to  contradict,  and 
shall  keep  myself  within  the  bounds  of  what  seems  to  me, 
after  years  of  careful  study  and  reflection,  reasonable. 

The  writer  of  the  second  chapter  of  Genesis  tells  us  that 
God  created  man  in  his  own  image  out  of  the  dust  of  the 
ground,  and  then  breathed  into  this  dust-made  man  the 
breath  of  life;  and  he  became  a  living  soul.  Readers  ordi- 
narily understand  these  words,  "  living  soul,"  to  convey  the 
idea  of  an  immortal  principle  immediately  communicated  to 
this  fleshly  body  by  the  inbreathing  spirit  of  God.  And  yet 
these  words  determine  nothing.  The  Hebrew  term  here 
translated  "  soul "  is  used  also  in  other  places  to  stand  for 
the  vital  principle  of  the  lower  animal  life,  and  therefore 
cannot  of  necessity  be  taken  as  definitely  asserting  anything 
concerning  the  nature  of  this  life  or  its  duration.  The  older 
part  of  the  Old  Testament,  representing,  doubtless,  the  orig- 
inal thought  and  feeling  of  the  Hebrew  race,  contains  not 
even  a  hint  of  immortality.  And,  in  later  days,  we  know 
that  the  two  great  sects  into  which  the  Jews  were  divided, 


The  Destiny  of  the  Soul  165 

the  Sadducees  and  the  Pharisees,  differed  mainly  concerning 
this  belief.  The  Sadducees  held  to  the  divine  authority  only 
of  the  Pentateuch,  claiming  to  stand  by  the  original  writings 
of  Moses,  and  declaring  that  they  did  not  believe  in  angel 
or  spirit ;  while  the  Pharisees,  who  were  the  progressive  sect, 
the  popular  party  in  the  nation,  accepted  the  traditions  and 
the  later  ideas,  and  so  had  come  to  believe  in  angel  and 
spirit  and  in  the  continued  existence  of  the  soul.  The  first 
intimation  of  anything  like  a  future  life  that  we  find  in  the 
Old  Testament,  in  the  order  of  Hebrew  thought,  is  in  the 
Book  of  Job ;  and  here  it  is  pictured  as  something  far  from 
desirable, —  a  land  of  darkness  and  confusion,  of  spirits  in 
an  underground,  cavernous  abode,  away  from  the  light  of 
day,  existing,  but  hardly  living.  This  was,  perhaps,  the  first 
faint  feeling  of  something  better  than  that  to  come. 

But  after  the  Jews  came  into  contact  with  the  religion  of 
the  Persians,  during  their  captivity,  they  seem  to  have  largely 
borrowed  these  foreign  ideas,  and  to  have  adopted  the  belief 
in  an  angelic  hierarchy,  in  heaven  with  its  court  and  mes- 
sengers, and  in  that  which  naturally  followed  and  went  with 
it, —  the  belief  in  the  continued  existence  of  the  individual 
soul.  And  this  was  undoubtedly  a  wide-spread  and  popular 
belief  at  the  time  that  Jesus  became  a  teacher  of  his  people ; 
and  Jesus  himself  very  plainly  shares  it. 

In  the  early  Christian  centuriesj  this  thought  came  to  be 
so  overmastering  a  faith  as  to  dominate  and  belittle  this  life 
till  it  became  hardly  more  than  the  vestibule  of  eternity. 
Paul  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to 
take  any  trouble  about  these  matters.  If  a  man  is  single, 
it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  marry,  the  change  is  coming  so 
soon.  If  a  man  is  married  already,  even  to  an  unbeliever, 
it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  be  troubled  about  it.  Certainly, 
it  is  not  worth  while  for  a  slave  to  fret  about  getting  his 


1 66  Religious  Reconstruction 

freedom.  It  is  not  worth  while  to  accumulate  wealth.  All 
these  earthly  affairs  become  of  slight  account,  because  the 
shadow  of  eternity  overhangs  the  earth.  In  all  the  early 
Christian  centuries,  then,  this  life  was  of  small  account ;  and 
the  other  was  everything. 

I  need  to  stop  here  for  a  little  to  tell  you  that  it  has  been 
an  important  problem  on  the  part  of  Christian  theologians 
to  decide  as  to  the  origin  of  the  soul.  They  have  questioned 
as  to  when  it  came  into  existence,  and  when  it  became 
connected  with  its  physical  companion.  I  speak  of  this 
because  it  has  an  important  bearing  on  a  point  I  wish  to 
make  a  little  later,  and  because  it  has  been  raised  over  and 
over  again  as  an  objection  against  our  modern  thought.  I 
have  been  asked,  If  man  is  developed  from  the  lower  forms 
of  life  on  earth,  when  and  how  comes  in  the  immortal  part 
of  him,  if  he  has  an  immortal  part  ?  The  persons  who  raise 
these  objections  seem  to  think  that  this  is  a  new  difficulty 
that  holds  against  the  theory  of  evolution,  but  that  was  not 
felt  by  those  who  clung  to  the  old  beliefs.  I  wish,  therefore, 
to  point  out  the  fact  that  this  was  an  important  theme  of 
speculation  on  the  part  of  the  old  theologians. 

There  were  three  different  views  held  by  as  many  different 
classes  of  adherents. 

The  first  believed  that  all  souls  had  existed  previously  to 
their  connection  with  the  body,  and  that  each  soul  entered 
this  bodily  tenement  during  the  time  preceding  or  at  the 
period  of  birth.  Then  there  was  a  party  who  believed  that 
God  created  each  individual  soul,  for  each  body,  during  the 
time  preceding  or  at  the  moment  of  birth.  The  third  party 
believed  that  the  soul  equally  with  the  body,  all  the  charac- 
teristics and  qualities  that  made  up  the  man,  were  trans- 
mitted from  parent  to  child.  Thus  this  subject  exercised 
men's  speculative  powers  in  old  times,  and  divided  the  Chris- 
tian Church  into  parties  this  way  and  that. 


The  Destiny  of  the  Soul  167 

But,  however  man  came  to  possess  a  soul  or  to  be  a 
soul,  it  has  been  taught  by  the  Christian  Church,  practically 
through  its  whole  history,  that  this  life  was  only  a  probation, 
that  men  were  placed  here  on  this  earth  during  a  certain 
period  of  trial.  They  were  to  be  tested  to  see  who  of  them 
would  stand  the  test, —  who  would  prove  himself  fitted  for 
the  immortal  career.  And  yet,  strangely  enough,  the  larger 
part  of  the  Protestant  world,  at  least,  has  held  that  this  ques- 
tion was  decided  before  the  worlds  were  made,  so  that  it 
seems  to  me  it  takes  all  significance  out  of  the  idea  of  there 
being  any  probation.  Augustine,  Calvin,  and  all  the  long 
line  of  their  followers,  from  the  early  ages  until  to-day, — 
those  who  believed  in  fore-ordination  and  election, —  of  course 
believe  that  this  probation  here  on  earth  is  only  a  matter 
of  form.  It  is  settled  before  a  soul  is  born  as  to  whether  it 
is  to  be  an  inhabitant  of  the  regions  of  light  or  of  darkness. 

As  to  the  destiny  of  these  souls  after  the  period  of  proba- 
tion is  passed,  there  have  been  several  schools  of  thought 
within  the  limits  of  Christendom.  Origen  represents  a  large 
body  of  thinkers  in  the  early  Church  who  could  not  accept 
the  idea  of  an  eternal  hell,  and  so  believed  that  after  a 
period  of  suffering  all  souls  would  at  last  be  restored  to  the 
divine  favor.  They  were  called  Restorationists,  from  this 
fact.  Then  the  Catholic  Church,  besides  having  its  final 
abode  for  the  blessed  and  its  final  abode  for  the  damned, 
has  had,  as  you  know,  a  place  —  purgatory — where  those  who 
were  not  good  enough  for  heaven  or  bad  enough  for  hell 
have  been  allowed,  through  longer  or  shorter  periods  of 
penal  suffering,  to  purge  away  the  sins  that  had  stained  them 
here,  and  become  fit  for  final  blessedness  in  the  presence  of 
God. 

The  Swedenborgians  have  held  to  the  belief  in  a  limited 
number  of  hells  and  heavens  •  and  their  hells  have  been  un- 


1 68  Religious  Reconstruction 

like  those  of  other  Protestant  beliefs.  They  held  that  souls 
gravitated  downward  or  upward  according  to  their  predomi- 
nant character  and  choice,  and  that  even  those  in  hell, 
although  shut  out  from  the  light  and  the  blessedness  of 
God,  are  not  in  that  torment  which  has  been  taught  by  the 
greater  part  of  Christendom.  They  have  chosen  evil,  and 
evil  has  become  their  good,  so  that  perhaps  the  punishment 
to  which  they  are  subjected  is  chiefly  privative  or  negative 
in  its  quality.  They  are  cut  off  and  shut  out  from  blessed- 
ness, and  still  find  a  kind  of  satisfaction  in  going  their  own 
way.  But,  as  you  are  aware,  it  is  the  great  Protestant  doc- 
trine that  the  moment  the  breath  has  left  the  body  the  ques- 
tion as  to  the  destiny  of  the  soul  is  settled,  settled  forever. 
There  have  been  men  and  women  on  the  edge  of  heresy,  if 
not  over  the  border,  who  would  believe  that  the  souls  of  the 
evil  might  possibly  be  annihilated  at  death.  Dr.  Bushnell 
taught  something  very  nearly  like  this.  His  tender  soul 
could  not  bear  the  old  burden  ;  and  so  he  held  that  the  sin- 
ful soul  —  sin  being  in  its  nature  a  kind  of  death  —  that  was 
cast  out  from  heaven  would  shrivel  and  shrink,  gradually 
losing  the  power  even  of  suffering,  and,  being  shut  out  for- 
ever from  God,  would  continue  still  to  exist,  but  would  be 
incapable  of  either  much  pleasure  or  pain.  But  the  great 
majority  have  held  that,  when  the  soul  left  the  body,  its 
destiny  was  settled  forever. 

I  would  like  to  call  your  attention  —  I  refer  to  it  because 
I  believe  that  those  who  are  not  familiar  with  it  will  be  glad 
to  know  that  there  is  such  a  book  —  to  a  volume,  by  Rev. 
S.  J.  Barrows,  entitled  The  Doom  of  the  Majority.  It  grew 
out  of  a  controversy  which  he  had  with  Rev.  Dr.  Withrow. 
Mr.  Barrows  had  made  the  statement,  in  the  Christian 
Register,  that  Orthodoxy  taught  that  the  great  majority  of 
souls  were  lost.  Dr.  Withrow  denied  the  truth  of  that  state- 


The  Destiny  of  the  Soul  169 

ment ;  and  this  book  is  the  result  of  that  controversy.  I  wish 
to  read  to  you  two  or  three  brief  passages  from  this  book,  as 
bearing  on  this  subject  and  on  another  which  we  need  to 
remember  still  exists  in  almost  all  the  creeds, —  in  all  the 
old  creeds,  at  least.  I  suppose  that,  if  you  should  tell  almost 
any  orthodox  clergyman  in  America  to-day  that  the  Church 
believed  in  the  damnation  of  infants,  he  would  be  indignant 
at  the  charge.  And  yet  the  belief  in  anything  but  this  is 
so  very  modern  that  we  may  say  that  it  is  the  result  of  the 
tender  revolt  of  the  human  heart  against  what  it  would  no 
longer  bear. 

"  We  especially  desire  to  know  from  this  venerable  Synod 
whether  it  acknowledges  as  its  own  doctrine,  and  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church,  particularly  what  is  asserted  .  .  .  con- 
cerning the  creation  of  the  larger  part  of  mankind  for 
destruction,  the  reprobation  of  infants,  even  though  born 
of  believing  parents." 

The  Synod  referred  to  was  the  famous  Synod  of  Dort. 
The  Swiss  theologians  at  Dort  answer,  "That  there  is  an 
election  and  reprobation  of  infants  no  less  than  of  adults,  we 
cannot  deny  in  the  face  of  God  who  loves  and  hates  unborn 
children." 

I  wish  to  quote  just  one  other  passage :  — 

"  As  the  eggs  of  the  asp  are  deservedly  crushed,  and  ser- 
pents just  born  are  deservedly  killed,  though  they  have  not 
yet  poisoned  any  one  with  their  bite,  so  infants  are  justly 
obnoxious  to  penalties." 

I  could  quote  you  passages  similar  to  this  from  the  old 
authorities  by  the  hour. 

There  is  a  famous  poem  by  Rev.  Michael  Wigglesworth, 
one  of  the  old  colonial  clergymen,  in  which  he  treats  this 
question  most  seriously,  though  it  reads  now  like  a  parody. 
In  one  place,  he  speaks  of  the  damnation  of  infants,  and 


170  Religious  Reconstruction 

says  the  nature  they  possess  is  a  crime,  and  that  they  cannot 
hope  to  dwell  in  heaven ;  but,  as  they  have  not  committed 
such  great  sins  as  many  who  have  lived  on  earth,  God  will 
perhaps  assign  to  them  "  the  easiest  room  in  hell." 

James  Freeman  Clarke,  in  his  Orthodoxy :  Its  Truths  and 
Errors,  quotes  from  a  Roman  Catholic  book  an  extract  which 
is  too  horrible  to  read,  on  the  damnation  of  infants.  I  will 
only  refer  you  to  it.  It  is  found  in  a  note  on  page  360.* 

The  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  representing  Pres- 
byterians both  in  Europe  and  America,  published  by  the  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  still  and  scattered  in  all  the  churches, 
says  explicitly  that  elect  infants  are  regenerate  and  saved ; 
and  the  next  article  says  those  that  are  not  elect  cannot  be 
saved,  etc. 

The  destiny  of  the  great  majority,  even  of  infants,  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world  until  the  end  is  wrapped  thus 
in  impenetrable  shadow,  overhung  by  cloud  and  darkness 
and  horror,  from  which  we  gladly  turn  away.  I  shall  not  this 
morning  even  attempt  to  argue  against  this  belief.  I  will 
simply  say  that,  though  it  were  written  clearly  in  every  page 
of  the  Bible  from  beginning  to  end,  I  would  still  believe 
that  such  a  Bible  was  a  libel  on  my  Father  who  is  in  heaven, 

*"To  show  how  some  Roman  Catholics  write  in  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  we  quote  the  following  from  a  Roman  Catholic  book,  published  in  England, 
by  Rev.  J.  Furniss,  being  especially  "  a  book  for  children."  Wishing  to  spare  our 
readers  such  horrors,  we  put  it  here,  advising  no  one  of  weak  nerves  to  read  its 
atrocious  descriptions :  — 

"  '  The  fourth  dungeon  is  "  the  boiling  kettle."  Listen  :  there  is  a  sound  like  that  of 
a  kettle  boiling.  Is  it  really  a  kettle  which  is  boiling?  No.  Then  what  is  it?  Hear 
what  it  is.  The  blood  is  boiling  in  the  scalded  veins  of  that  boy ;  the  brain  is  boiling 
and  bubbling  in  his  head ;  the  marrow  is  boiling  in  his  bones.  The  fifth  dungeon  is  the 
"  red-hot  oven,"  in  which  is  a.  little  child.  Hear  how  it  screams  to  come  out ;  see  how  it 
turns  and  twists  itself  about  in  the  fire  ;  it  beats  its  head  against  the  roof  of  the  oven.  It 
stamps  its  little  feet  on  the  floor  of  the  oven.  To  this  child  God  was  very  good.  Very 
likely  God  saw  that  this  child  would  get  worse  and  worse,  and  would  never  repent,  and 
so  it  would  have  to  be  punished  much  more  in  hell.  So  God  in  his  mercy  called  it  ottt 
of  the  world  in  its  early  childhood.'  " 


The  Destiny  of  the  Soul  171 

—  that  it  issued  not  from  him,  but  that  some  enemy  of  his 
had  done  it. 

As  to  the  destiny  of  the  saved,  I  need  detain  you  with 
hardly  a  word.  The  old  picture  of  heaven  as  a  place  simply 
of  rest,  of  song,  of  worship,  does  not  seem  attractive  to  us 
in  the  modern  world.  Now  and  then  there  are  certain 
pictures  of  it  which  are  even  repulsive. 

Lactantius,  the  old  church  Father,  foreshadowed  the  belief 
of  some  more  modern  theologians.  He  represented  Chris- 
tians as  looking  down  into  the  place  of  the  damned,  and 
laughing  and  exulting  over  their  torments.  But  we  must 
remember,  in  excuse  for  him, —  for  he  was  not  inhuman, — 
that  he  lived  during  a  period  of  bitter  persecution ;  and  he 
was  simply  flinging  this  as  a  weapon  at  the  heads  of  his 
enemies,  hoping  that  some  time  the  tables  would  be  turned, 
and  that  they  who  were  now  torturing  would  themselves  be 
tormented,  while  their  victims  would  then  be  in  peace.  It 
seems  to  me  that,  in  abatement  of  what  would  be  too  inhu- 
man in  him,  we  need  to  remember  this.  A  good  many  mod- 
ern theologians  have  gone  so  far  as  to  say  not  only  that  a 
mother  might  be  perfectly  happy  though  her  favorite  son 
were  in  hell,  but  that  even  it  would  be  a  part  of  the  joy  of 
those  who  were  with  God  to  show  sympathy  with  his  judg- 
ment, and  to  take  positive  delight  in  whatever  he  had  done, 
even  though  it  were  the  inflicting  of  torture  upon  the  lost. 
I  take  it  here,  again,  these  men  were  not  all  inhuman.  It 
was  simply  an  extraordinary  effort  by  which  they  were  trying 
to  get  themselves  so  in  sympathy  with  what  they  believed 
God  was  going  justly  to  do  as  to  find  no  fault  with  it,  even 
to  see  that  all  was  and  must  be  right. 

I  turn  now  to  hint  some  things  which  seem  to  me  rational, 
by  way  of  hope  as  we  look  out  towards  the  future.  It  is  not 
a  part  of  my  purpose  even  to  touch  on  the  question  of  the 


172  Religious  Reconstruction 

proofs  for  immortality.  I  have  done  that  more  than  once, 
and  I  may  do  it  more  than  once  again  ;  but  it  is  not  a  part 
of  my  present  plan.  I  shall  assume  it. 

In  the  first  place,  I  wish  to  say  a  word  as  to  the  possible 
origin  of  this  immortal  self  of  ours  along  the  lines  of  devel- 
opment which  men  like  Herbert  Spencer  and  Darwin  have 
made  clear  to  the  thought  of  our  modern  life. 

The  first  form  of  force,  the  lowest  form  of  force  of  which 
we  know  anything,  is  what  we  call  the  physical  force  under 
our  feet.  Next  above  it  is  chemical  force.  Next  above 
chemical  force  comes  the  life-force  in  the  lower  plants  and 
the  lower  animals.  Then  this  climbs  up  — we  know  not  how, 
but  we  know  that  it  has  done  it  —  into  that  which  constitutes 
man,  not  only  into  this  life-force  of  the  body,  but  the  power 
of  thought,  the  power  of  self-consciousness,  the  ability  to 
say  "I."  It  is  my  belief  that  we  can  hold  to  the  thought 
that  along  this  line  of  development  there  has  come  to  pass 
at  last  the  birth  of  immortal  spirit,  without  there  being  any 
break  in  the  chain.  So  far  as  we  know,  there  is  no  one  of 
the  lower  animals,  none  of  the  lower  forms  of  life,  that  pos- 
sesses what  we  call  self-conscious  individuality.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  horse  or  the  dog  ever  even 
thought,  I  am  a  horse,  I  am  a  dog,  or  I  am  I.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  even  the  most  intelligent  animals 
have  ever  risen  to  the  point  of  self-consciousness  in  this 
sense.  I  believe  that  all  these  life-forces,  the  forces  that  we 
speak  of  as  without  life,  all  the  forces  there  are  in  the  uni- 
verse, are  just  so  much  a  part  of  the  manifestation  of  the  in- 
finite and  universal  spirit  of  life  that  we  call  God.  But,  when 
climbing  along  these  lines  of  development,  it  comes  at  last 
in  man  to  this  self-conscious  individuality.  Then  I  believe 
that  here  is  something,  still  a  part  of  God,  still  dependent 
on  him,  linking  to  him  as  child  to  parent  forever,  and  still 


The  Destiny  of  the  Sottl  173 

something  capable  of  walking  alone,  of  being  itself,  of  con- 
tinuing itself  through  uncounted  time.  I  believe  that  the 
very  soul  and  essence  of  this  immortal  spirit  of  ours  is  this 
self-conscious  individuality,  which  has  come  to  birth,  so  far 
as  we  know,  only  in  man.  We  do  not  know  where  it  is  in 
these  bodies.  We  cannot  locate  this  fact  of  life,  this  power 
of  thought,  of  feeling,  of  affection,  of  love ;  but  we  know 
that  it  is,  and  we  know  that  it  is,  in  such  a  magnificent  sweep 
of  power,  that  we  can  say  it,  and  it  only,  is  the  self.  We 
never  think  of  the  body  as  ourself.  These  hands  are  not  I : 
they  are  my  hands.  This  head  is  not  I,  even  the  brain  :  it  is 
my  brain.  Every  part,  every  organ  I  own,  I  use ;  they  are 
not  I.  I  am  somewhere  here,  I  know  not  where  or  how; 
but  I  live,  and  I  use  the  body.  It  is  sometimes  supposed 
to  be  an  unanswerable  objection  to  the  continued  existence 
of  the  soul  that  thought  depends  upon  the  brain,  and  that 
the  brain  ceases  to  be  alive  at  death.  And  yet  is  it  any 
more  wonderful  to  suppose  that  this  same  I  may  pass  to, 
and  inform,  some  other  brain,  constructed  of  some  finer 
material  than  we  know  of  at  present,  than  it  is  to  suppose 
what  we  actually  know  to  be  true, —  that  the  mind  keeps  using 
not  the  same  substance  in  the  brain,  but  assimilating  and 
casting  off  material  day  by  day  the  whole  life  long  ?  I  keep 
my  own  self-conscious  individuality,  I  keep  my  identity,  I 
remember  what  happened  last  year,  what  happened  in  my 
childhood.  Where  is  the  record?  It  is  not  in  the  same 
brain  that  I  had  when  a  child  j  for  there  is  not  a  particle  of 
my  childhood  brain  beneath  this  dome  to-day,  there  is  not 
a  particle  perhaps  of  the  brain  which  I  had  last  year. 
Somewhere  I  keep  myself.  Can  the  objector  tell  me  where  ? 
I  believe,  then,  that  it  is  perfectly  rational  to  suppose  that 
there  may  be  an  ethereal  —  not  immaterial  but  material  — 
body  inside  this  one,  corresponding  to  it  part  by  part.  That 


174  Religious  Reconstruction 

is  one  theory.  Or  there  may  be  some  as  yet  unknown  way 
by  which  my  thought  acts  upon  and  creates  the  possibility 
of  continuing  its  identity  in  connection  with  other  finer 
etherealized  particles  of  matter,  so  that,  when  I  escape  this 
body,  I  am  I,  the  same.  Something  of  this  kind  I  believe. 

I  cannot  stop  this  morning  to  argue  concerning  theories. 
I  simply  express  my  own  faith.  I  believe  that  I  shall  con- 
tinue to  exist,  walk  out  of  this  body  as  out  of  a  house  no 
longer  inhabited,  but  still  not  houseless.  I  believe  that  the 
next  life  will  be  a  real  life,  as  real  as  the  present  one. 
Spirit,  formless,  invisible,  intangible,  inaudible,  means  to 
me  nothing.  We  are  already  sufficiently  acquainted  with 
the  substance  out  of  which  worlds  are  made  to  gain  glimpses 
of  forms  of  matter,  of  methods  of  existence,  beyond  us, —  we 
know  not  in  what  subtle  or  what  countless  forms.  I  believe, 
then,  that  the  next  life  will  be  real, —  not  ghostly,  not  ghastly, 
not  thin,  shadowy,  unreal,  not  a  life  with  the  blood  out,  not 
a  life  with  the  nerve  out,  not  a  life  with  all  the  pulsing 
power  that  makes  us  feel  glad  to  be  alive  here  faded, 
drained,  departed.  We  know  enough  of  this  material  uni- 
verse even  now  to  be  sure  beyond  question  of  the  fact  that 
the  mightiest  of  all  forces  are  the  invisible  and  the  intangible 
ones.  I  believe,  then,  in  a  real,  pulsing,  thrilling,  throbbing 
life,  as  much  beyond  and  above  what  we  know  here  as  chem- 
ical power  is  beyond  the  dead  earth  beneath  it,  as  the  lower 
forms  of  life  are  beyond  the  chemical  power,  as  man  is 
above  the  lower  animal  life.  I  believe  that  God  takes  no 
step  backward,  and,  as  we  step  out  and  upward,  we  reach  a 
higher  plane  and  a  higher  grade  of  life  in  every  respect. 

Shall  we  remember  ?  Shall  we  be  cognizant  of  the  lives 
of  those  we  have  left  behind  ?  I  take  up  thus  one  or  two 
of  these  questions  only  to  give  my  opinion,  because  every 
little  while  people  say  to  me,  "  If,  after  I  leave  this  body,  I 


The  Destiny  of  the  Soul  175 

must  still  know  the  suffering  of  those  I  have  left  behind,  I 
cannot  understand  how  there  could  be  any  heaven  for  me." 
Consider  for  a  moment.  Would  you,  if  you  could,  drink  the 
Lethe  stream,  forget,  go  off  into  some  blissful  bower  merely 
for  the  sake  of  your  own  ease,  and  not  know  what  your 
friends  whom  you  left  behind  are  going  through  ?  I  do  not 
know  what  your  conception  of  heaven  may  be  like,  but  mine 
includes  remembrance,  knowing,  if  I  may,  carrying,  or  at 
least  mitigating,  the  woes  and  sorrows  of  those  I  have  left 
behind.  I  would  know  every  pang  and  heartache  of  my 
friends  here,  and  would,  if  I  might,  come  back  and  minister 
to  them.  If  I  could  not  do  that,  I  should  find  no  pleasure  in 
forgetfulness ;  and  I  cannot  understand  how  any  heart  that 
is  not  selfish  could  even  dream  of  wishing  to  go  away  for 
the  sake  of  its  own  ease,  beyond  the  sound  of  the  sighs  of 
those  whom  they  have  once  tenderly  loved. 

Another  question.  Shall  we  all  be  mingled  together  in 
that  other  life  as  we  have  been  here,  the  good  and  the  bad 
together  ?  I  received,  not  long  ago,  a  letter  from  a  lady,  say- 
ing that  she  understood  me  to  mean  that,  and  that,  if  I  did, 
she  could  not  understand  how  there  could  be  any  happiness 
there.  I  believe  still  again  here  that  there  will  be  the  same 
freedom  of  association  that  there  is  in  this  life,  and  that  the 
good  and  the  bad  will  be  together,  in  that  sense.  And  I,  for 
my  part,  do  not  want  any  other  kind  of  heaven  than  that. 
I  think  there  is  more  religion  in  the  old  pagan's  prayer  than 
in  that  selfish  desire  to  get  off  out  of  sight  and  sound  of 
disagreeable  things,  that  one  may  have  a  good  time  by  him- 
self. The  old  pagan  said, —  I  do  not  quote  verbatim:  O 
God,  never  will  I  enter  into  peace  alone.  So  long  as  there 
is  any  sorrow,  any  sin,  any  tears,  I  will  not  enter  into  any 
heaven  of  rest,  though  the  threshold  invite  me  and  the  door 
be  open  for  my  coming. 


176  Religious  Reconstruction 

Now,  as  to  the  destiny  of  these  souls,  of  the  moral  qualities 
and  characteristics  of  this  continued  existence,  I  have  some 
important  principles  to  outline.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  old 
belief  of  the  Universalists  —  which  I  touch  not  to  controvert, 
because  I  suppose  very  few  hold  it  to-day  —  is,  on  the  face  of 
it,  an  absurdity.  They  believed  that  through  the  merits  of 
Christ  not  a  part,  but  all  men,  were  to  be  saved,  and  that 
everybody  at  death,  through  some  miraculous  change,  was 
fitted  for  this  new  condition.  If  we  have  learned  anything 
about  this  universe,  it  is  this  :  that  it  is  one  God,  one  law,  in 
all  worlds.  We  have  found  out,  through  the  use  of  the  spec- 
troscope, that  even  the  most  distant  star  is  composed  of  the 
same  materials  as  this  we  tread  under  our  feet.  This  earth 
is  as  much  in  the  heavens  as  Sirius ;  and  there  is  no  up  or 
down,  no  bad  or  better  or  worst,  so  far  as  its  condition  is 
concerned, —  the  same  universe,  the  same  one  power  control- 
ling all.  Is  it  not  rational,  then,  to  suppose  that,  when  we 
die,  it  is  simply  like  the  sleep  of  the  night  ?  A  man  sails 
across  the  equator,  which  is  an  imaginary  line.  He  is  the 
same  man  on  the  south  side  that  he  was  five  minutes  before 
on  the  north  side.  A  man  passes  out  of  the  year  1887  into 
the  year  1888,  which  is  again  a  purely  imaginary  line  ;  and  on 
the  first  morning  of  1888  he  stands  the  same,  resultant  of  the 
inherited  influences  of  the  past,  and  all  that  he  has  moulded 
them  into  by  his  own  thought,  feeling,  and  deed.  And  so  I 
believe  that,  the  first  moment  of  conscious  existence  beyond 
what  we  call  death,  we  shall  find  that  we  are  just  ourselves ; 
that  we  have  waked  up  as  we  went  to  sleep ;  that  we  have 
only  passed  through  an  open  doorway,  and  are  what  we  were 
before, —  only  the  conditions  will  be  changed,  circumstances 
will  be  altered.  And  here  comes  in  the  force  of  that  warn- 
ing,—  a  warning  which,  it  seems  to  me,  we  must  sound, —  the 
echo  of  those  words  of  Jesus  that  are  not  yet  outgrown, 


The  Destiny  of  the  Soul  177 

"Lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures  in  heaven."  In  other 
words,  get  ready  for  those  conditions  that  are  to  come, 
that  you  may  not  find  yourselves  ushered  into  a  state'  of 
existence  for  which  you  are  entirely  unprepared.  Consider 
what  we  are  likely  to  carry  with  us  over  yonder.  We  can- 
not carry  our  money.  We  shall  carry  very  little  of  our  local 
reputation.  We  shall  carry  very  few  of  those  things  that 
constitute  the  great  interests  and  cares  of  the  majority  of 
men  and  women.  It  is  these  eternal  qualities,  what  we 
call  the  spiritual  qualities,  of  love,  of  tenderness,  of  pity,  of 
service ;  it  is  the  good  we  have  done,  the  good  we  have 
thought  of,  the  good,  at  any  rate,  that  we  have  planned  and 
attempted;  it  is  these  spiritual  and  moral  qualities  which 
are  eternal ;  it  is  that  which  does  not  depend  on  this  earth, 
which  does  not  depend  on  this  physical  body,  which  does 
not  depend  on  the  kind  of  society  we  have  lived  in, —  it  is 
this  eternal  part  of  us  that  we  carry  with  us.  And,  if  we 
find  ourselves  flung  suddenly  into  the  midst  of  these  changed 
conditions,  without  any  training,  without  any  forethought, 
without  any  fitness  for  them,  with  none  of  the  spiritual  fac- 
ulties born  or  developed,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  will  be 
hell  enough  for  any  of  us.  Omar  Khayyam,  the  famous 
Persian  poet,  says, — 

"  I  sent  my  Soul  through  the  Invisible, 

Some  letter  of  that  after-life  to  spell ; 
And  by  and  by  my  Soul  returned  to  me, 

And  answered,  '  I  myself  am  heaven  and  hell.'  " 

Miss  Elizabeth  Stuart  Phelps,  in  one  of  her  books,  has 
outlined  in  dramatic  and  most  rational  fashion  the  possible 
suffering  of  a  soul  cast  into  the  midst  of  this  spiritual  com- 
panionship, with  none  of  the  spiritual  faculties  developed  or 
in  any  way  fitted  for  the  kind  of  life  that  it  was  there  called 
upon  to  lead. 


178  Religious  Reconstruction 

I  have  not  time  to  deal  with  these  phases  of  this  picture 
of  life  as  I  would  like  to.  I  must  touch  as  rapidly  as  I  can 
on  one  or  two  other  points,  and  leave  the  subject  suggested, 
not  treated. 

I  know  that  there  are  states  of  mind  into  which  many  of 
us,  perhaps  all  of  us,  fall,  when  it  seems  to  us  that  immor- 
tality would  be  a  burden.  I  have  friends  who  say  to  me, 
"I  look  forward  to  the  thought  of  continued  existence  year 
after  year,  century  after  century,  aeon  after  aeon,  and  am 
appalled,  and  turn  away  and  sigh  for  rest."  Yet  I  believe 
that  Tennyson  put  eternal  meaning  into  those  words  which, 
though  now  trite,  I  must  quote  again  :  — 

"  Whatever  crazy  sorrow  saith, 
No  life  that  breathes  with  human  breath 
Hath  ever  truly  long'd  for  death. 

'Tis  life,  whereof  our  nerves  are  scant, 
O  life,  not  death,  for  which  we  pant ; 
More  life,  and  fuller,  that  I  want." 

It  is  life, —  life  free  from  trammel,  free  from  burden,  free 
from  hampering  conditions  ;  a  life  of  attainment  after  effort, 
not  of  discouragement  and  failure ;  a  life  where  the  condi- 
tions are  such  that  we  can  grasp  the  things  we  long  for,  and 
where  we  can  cherish  unclouded  and  eternal  hope.  This 
would  not  weary.  I  believe,  then,  that  we  may  look  forward 
to  two  or  three  definite  and  distinct  hopes.  I  think  we  may 
trust  that  we  shall  throw  off  with  these  bodies  many  of  the 
disabilities,  hindrances,  that  are  often  too  much  for  us  here, 
and  find  ourselves  freer,  better  able  to  cope  with  the  condi- 
tions of  life  there,  finding  at  our  feet,  as  I  believe  we  shall, 
the  lowest  round  of  a  ladder  the  upper  end  of  which  is  at 
the  foot  of  the  throne  of  God.  I  do  not  believe  that  there 
is  a  place  in  any  world,  or  that  there  will  be  any  time  in  any 


The  Destiny  of  the  Soul  179 

world,  when  any  soul  may  not,  if  it  will,  take  hold  of  God's 
hand  and  begin  to  climb,  climbing  unto  better  things  on  the 
"  stepping-stones  of  our  dead  selves." 

Again,  I  look  forward  to  that  life  as  one  where  there  will 
be  freedom  of  choice  of  companionship,  of  association,  as 
there  is  not  here ;  where  we  may  find  not  only  in  one  little 
society,  but  in  all  worlds,  those  of  kin  to  us,  and  rejoice  in 
the  sunshine  of  their  eternal  fellowship,  unhampered  by 
question  or  criticism  of  relations  as  here,  seeking  out  those 
who  can  lift  us  and  help  us  and  lead  us  on.  Socrates 
pictures  to  himself  the  joy  of  converse  with  the  famous  men 
of  old.  May  we  not  look  forward  to  something  like  to  that  ? 
I  do  not  believe  that  the  poets  cease  to  sing  over  yonder, 
that  musicians  compose  grand  symphonies  no  more,  that  the 
hands  or  imaginations  of  artists  grow  weary.  It  seems  to 
me  that  all  these  high  and  fine  things  that  the  great  ones 
of  the  earth  have  wrought  for  our  joy,  our  culture,  our 
uplifting,  may  be  wrought  in  fuller  and  higher  degree  over 
yonder,  and  that  the  resources  of  these  souls  of  ours  shall 
prove  to  be  unlimited  and  the  field  exhaustless. 

And,  then,  study.  Agassiz,  Darwin,  Giordano  Bruno, 
Galileo,  Kepler, —  these  great  men  who  have  loved  to  look 
into  the  secrets  of  the  universe,  have  loved,  as  Kepler 
expresses  it,  "  to  think  over  God's  thoughts  after  him,"  have 
loved  to  trace  the  origin  and  growth  and  significance  of 
things, —  I  do  not  believe  that  such  faculties  as  theirs  shall 
tire.  When  the  faculties  with  which  we  are  laboring  are 
tireless,  and  when  not  only  one  planet,  but  all  worlds,  are 
the  field,  and  all  time  is  before  us,  think  what  the  souls  of 
men  may  achieve ! 

And,  then,  just  a  hint  in  passing.  There  is  no  reason 
that  we  know  of  for  supposing  that  our  five  senses  exhaust 
the  universe.  There  may  be  forms  and  phases  that  will  call 


i8o  Religious  Reconstruction 

for  the  use  of  ten  or  fifteen  or  a  hundred  senses ;  and  they 
may  be  called  out  to  meet  and  respond  to  the  need. 

But,  beyond  and  above  all  these  things,  I  believe  that  that 
which  is  divinest  in  us  will  continue  to  be  divinest  there, — 
love,  help.  Two  souls  that  care  for  each  other  in  this  world, 
joining  forces  of  thought  and  hand  to  help  any  soul  that 
needs, —  is  not  this  the  nearest  approach  that  we  can  picture 
to  heaven  while  here?  Will  there  be  call  for  that  over 
yonder?  I  cannot  doubt  it.  I  do  not  believe  that  this 
planet  is  the  only  world  in  which  men  have  been  born,  in 
which  a  school  for  souls  has  been  set  up,  in  which  men  and 
women  are  learning  how  to  live  their  lives  through  that 
process  that  we  call  sin  and  failure.  For  aught  we  know, 
worlds  like  this  may  be  scattered  through  space.  For  aught 
any  one  knows,  in  parts  of  the  universe  where  now  are  only 
nebulae,  there  may  be  worlds  building  out  of  this  star-cloud, 
and  forms  of  life  may  be  developed  there,  as  here  thou- 
sands and  thousands  of  years  ago ;  and  the  life  history 
of  this  world  may  be  re-enacted  millions  of  times,  so  that 
there  may  be  field  forever  for  those  who  love  to  help  their 
fellow-men  to  play  the  grandest  part  of  which  I  can  dream, 
the  part  of  stepping  from  heaven,  even  the  highest  heaven, 
if  any  soul  may  attain  that,  to  take  the  hand  of  the  lowest, 
feeblest,  most  sinful  being,  even  though  it  were  in  the  murk 
of  hell,  to  lift  and  lead  and  comfort  and  encourage,  to  see 
a  soul  blossom  under  one's  care  as  one  watches  a  flower  in 
his  garden,  to  help  God  in  the  work  of  creating  those  who 
shall  be  fit  for  the  beatific  and  eternal  vision. 

These  as  hints,  fragments,  reaching  out  towards  a  life 
concerning  which  we  must  say,  "  Eye  hath  not  seen  nor  ear 
heard,  nor  hath  it  entered  into  the  heart  of  man"  to  picture 
it.  We  know  not  what  we  shall  be ;  but  more  and  more  we 
shall  be  "  like  him." 


If  you  are  Right,  How  does  it  happen  that  Every 
One  does  not  agree  with  you? 


I  HAVE  an  aunt  in  the  country,  who  is  a  most  firm  adher- 
ent of  the  old  faith ;  and  she  has  put  into  terse  and  idiomatic 
English  this  question  concerning  me,  which  is  broader  than 
she  thinks,  and  which  applies  to  the  whole  liberal  movement, 
—  indeed,  to  every  new  movement  in  all  the  world  and 
throughout  all  time.  And  she  is  not  the  only  one  who  has 
given  expression  to  it.  She  said  to  one  of  my  relatives,  not 
a  great  while  ago :  "  If  Minot  is  right,  how  does  it  happen 
that  everybody  else  does  not  hold  the  same  opinions  ?  Here 
are  educated  men  in  all  professions,  here  are  thousands  of 
clergymen  who  have  been  trained  for  their  special  work, 
here  are  people,  surely,  with  as  much  brain  power  as  he  has, 
people  with  as  broad  an  education,  people  who  are  to  be 
credited  with  as  free  a  mind,  and  who  ought  to  hold  them- 
selves as  open  to  convictions  of  truth ;  and  yet  they  not  only 
do  not  hold  his  opinions,  but  they  are  radically  opposed  to 
them.  If  he  is  right,  how  does  this  happen  ?  " 

This  is  a  fair  question;  and  it  demands  a  fair,  earnest, 
honest  answer.  The  presumption,  as  you  notice,  is  that,  in 
all  ordinary  controversies  of  this  sort,  the  truth  is  more  likely 
to  lie  with  the  majority.  If  a  person  chooses  to  entertain 
ideas  that  are  either  new  or  peculiar,  are  not  the  chances 
against  his  being  right  ?  Is  it  not  likely  that  these  are  mere 


1 82  Religious  Reconstruction 

personal  whims,  and  that  the  great  majority  of  the  world 
may  still  be  followed  with  more  safety?  The  chances  are 
that  they  may.  It  cannot  be  denied  that,  at  least  in  all  the 
ordinary  concerns  of  life,  the  majority  is  more  likely  to  be 
in  the  right  than  the  minority,  however  respectable  that 
minority  may  be.  There  is  a  saying  which,  because  it  sums 
up  the  common-sense  judgment  of  the  world,  has  passed 
into  a  proverb :  Everybody  is  wiser  than  anybody.  Con- 
cerning the  ordinary  occupations,  ordinary  thoughts,  the  ordi- 
nary business  of  life,  I  should  advise  you  always  to  go  with 
the  majority,  or,  at  any  rate,  unless  there  came  to  me  some 
special  reason  that  seemed  to  me  strong  enough  to  turn  the 
scale  the  other  way.  A  path  that  is  open  and  clear,  that  has 
been  trodden  for  hundreds  and  hundreds  of  years,  is  a  path 
that  at  least  has  an  outcome  to  it  and  that  leads  people 
somewhere,  or  it  would  not  thus  have  been  trodden.  And 
if  some  one  comes  to  you,  and  invites  you  to  leave  this  clear 
path  that  has  carried  people  in  safety,  and  asks  you  to  fol- 
low him  on  some  trail  that  appears  to  lead  into  and  be  lost 
in  the  wilderness,  you  are  wise,  at  least,  to  hesitate  and  ask 
a  few  questions,  and  wait  for  proof.  So  the  person  who 
holds  this  position  is  likely  to  be  right.  You  are  wiser,  in 
all  ordinary  cases,  to  follow  the  open  streets  of  the  city.  If 
you  choose  to  take  some  cross-cut,  some  by-way,  and  your 
eyes  are  open,  you  will  see  the  sign,  "  Private  way,  danger- 
ous." You  can  follow  it,  if  you  please;  but  you  must  do 
it  on  your  own  responsibility,  and  look  carefully  to  your 
going. 

And  yet  consider  for  a  moment  the  kind  of  world  we  live 
in  and  the  kind  of  being  man  has  been  in  the  past  and  is 
still, —  a  universe  to  the  first  man  absolutely  unknown,  he 
born  into  it  a  child,  opening  his  eyes,  beginning  to  ask  ques- 
tions that  on  every  hand  baffled  him  so  that  he  was  not  able 


If  you  are  Right,  etc.  183 

to  answer  them.  Consider  the  human  race  beginning  in  this 
way,  yet  making  some  progress  year  after  year  and  age  after 
age.  Always  along  the  lines  of  this  progress  there  must  be 
times  when  some  one  individual,  through  a  finer  development 
of  brain,  a  wider  development  of  faculty,  a  keener  insight, 
catches  a  glimpse  of  some  new  truth,  sees  further,  sees  more 
clearly  than  his  fellows,  so  that  in  his  case,  at  any  rate,  it 
comes  to  be  true  that  this  particular  somebody  is  wiser  than 
everybody.  Had  it  not  been  true,  where  would  the  race 
have  been  to-day  ?  We  all  started  on  the  borderland  of  the 
animal  in  the  jungle,  wild,  naked,  men  of  the  woods,  feeding 
on  the  rough  products  of  uncultivated  nature ;  and  so  we 
have  come  to  be  what  we  are.  How  has  it  been  done  ?  It 
has  been  done  by  somebody's  seeing  a  new  truth  concerning 
this  infinite  mystery  that  is  still  so  largely  unsolved.  It  has 
come  to  pass,  then,  that  men  here  and  there,  or  little  groups 
of  people,  have  been  wiser  than  all  the  past,  have  heard  the 
command  of  God,  have  thought  that  it  was  their  duty  to 
echo  that  command,  and  have  so  embodied  the  truth  that  it 
claimed  the  allegiance  of  every  human  soul.  And  is  it  not 
true,  has  it  not  been  true  always,  that,  while  the  common 
sense,  as  we  call  it,  the  sense  that  people  have  in  common, — 
because  it  is  the  result  of  the  common  experience  of  the 
world, —  is  the  safest  guide  in  regard  to  common,  ordinary 
things  of  life,  the  minority,  and  a  very  small  minority  at 
that,  is  and  has  been  right  in  regard  to  life's  higher  things  ? 
How  is  it  to-day  in  science  ?  Would  you  take  the  opinions 
of  the  majority  of  people  or  the  opinions  of  the  few  ?  Has 
it  not  been  true  in  our  own  day  that  two  men,  and  two 
alone  in  all  the  world,  and  those  two  unacquainted  with  each 
other, —  Charles  Darwin  and  Alfred  Russel  Wallace, —  were 
the  only  two  on  earth  who  held  anything  like  a  correct 
theory  of  the  origin  and  growth  of  life  on  this  planet  ?  The 


184  Religious  Reconstruction 

majority  is  coming  to  it ;  but  it  did  happen  that  it  was  a  very 
small  minority  —  a  minority  of  two  —  that  was  right,  and  all 
the  world  else  was  wrong.* 

How  is  it  in  art  ?  If  you  were  going  to  buy  a  valuable 
picture,  would  you  trust  to  the  opinions  of  the  crowd,  or 
would  you  select  some  one  of  special  taste  and  cultivation 
and  aptness  in  this  direction  ?  Is  it  not  true  that  the  opin- 
ions of  the  few  here,  and  that  a  very  few,  ought  to  outweigh 
the  world  ? 

How  is  it  in  education  ?  It  is  always  the  minority  that 
is  specially  educated  in  regard  to  the  highest  and  most  im- 
portant things,  and  so  in  every  department  of  life  concerning 
those  things  of  highest  import,  most  difficult  of  apprehen- 
sion ;  and  so  it  seems  to  me  concerning  this  highest  of  all 
and  most  difficult  of  all,  religion,  it  may  be  considered  an 
open  question  whether  the  opinion  of  the  minority  is  not 
more  likely  to  be  the  correct  opinion. 

As  throwing  some  practical  light  on  this  subject,  let  us 
glance  at  a  few  historic  examples.  When  Moses  set  himself 
up  as  a  leader  of  a  new  religious  movement,  what  were  the 
chances  ?  Think  of  the  self-complacent  sneers  of  the  aris- 
tocracy and  the  priesthood  of  Egypt.  Here,  they  said,  is  a 
fellow  who  has  learned  all  that  he  does  know  from  us.  We 
have  let  him  into  a  few  of  the  secrets  of  our  ancient  learn- 
ing ;  and  now,  forsooth,  he  claims  to  be  wiser  than  all  of  us ! 
If  Moses  was  right,  why  did  not  all  Egypt  follow  him  in 
sympathy,  instead  of  with  an  army  bent  on  his  destruction  ? 
Here  was  a  civilization  that  had  been  standing  for  thousands 
of  years,  a  civilization  that  ever  since  that  day  has  been  one 
of  the  wonders  of  the  earth  :  how  did  it  happen,  if  Moses 
was  right,  that  all  those  people  were  so  bitterly  opposed 
to  him  ? 

Come  down  to  the  time  when  Isaiah  and  the  great  leading, 

*  Herbert  Spencer  should  be  added,  so  making  three. 


If  you  arc  Rig  Jit,  etc.  185 

flaming  prophets  of  that  age  came  to  the  people  with  their 
new  and  grander  visions  of  truth  :  how  did  it  happen  that  so 
few  were  ready  to  even  listen  to  them  ?  If  they  were  right, 
why  were  not  the  people  ready  to  hear  ?  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  we  know  that  it  is  only  the  noblef  civilizations,  that 
have  come  centuries  later  than  their  time,  that  have  been 
able  to  appreciate  the  worth  of  the  finest  and  most  inspired 
utterances  of  those  noble  men. 

When  Jesus  came  to  preach  his  new  gospel,  how  did  it 
happen,  if  he  was  right,  if  he  was  so  much  in  advance  of  his 
time,  that  the  people  did  not  follow  him  ?  Did  they  not 
sneer  at  him :  "  Why,  this  is  Jesus  of  Nazareth  and  of 
Galilee !  No  prophet  ever  came  out  of  Galilee,  much  less 
out  of  a  little  village  like  Nazareth.  And  how  knoweth  this 
man  letters,  having  never  learned?  And  is  not  his  father 
this  carpenter  Joseph  ?  and  is  not  his  mother  Mary  just  a 
common  woman,  like  the  rest  of  us  ? "  This  was  the  spirit 
in  which  he  was  received ;  yet  the  world  to-day  looks  at  the 
ideal  of  Jesus  as  a  star  leading,  but  as  yet  unapproachable, 
and  that  only  the  finest  and  highest  civilization  of  the  world 
can  ever  realize.  And,  when  Paul  started  out  to  preach  his 
gospel,  how  did  it  happen  that  the  very  disciples  of  Jesus, 
those  who  had  listened  to  his  own  words,  who  had  had  the 
opportunity  of  drinking  in  his  spirit,  followed  Paul,  as  we 
know  they  did,  from  town  to  town  and  city  to  city,  warning 
the  people  against  him,  and  saying,  He  preaches  new  and 
fanatical  and  dangerous  doctrines,  to  which  you  must  not 
listen  ;  he  has  departed  from  the  faith  of  his  Master  ?  And, 
in  later  times, —  to  mention  them  all  would  be  to  mention 
every  leader  of  the  world, —  Savonarola  in  Florence, —  if  he 
was  right,  why  did  not  the  people  of  Florence  hear  him 
instead  of  burning  him  ?  Huss,  Wyclif,  Martin  Luther, 
Wesley,  Ballou,  the  founder  of  the  Universalists,  Channing, 


1 86  Religious  Reconstruction 

our  own  leader,  Theodore  Parker,  who  broadened  and  deep- 
ened the  work  that  Channing  began, — if  these  men  were 
right,  how  does  it  happen  that  the  world  does  not  run  after 
them  ?  As  a  matter  of  fact,  no  matter  what  the  explanation 
may  be,  we  know  that  the  pathway  of  human  progress  has 
been  lighted  by  burning  fagots,  has  been  marked  as  by  mile- 
stones by  the  tombs  of  leaders,  prophets,  martyrs, —  monu- 
ments which  the  children  have  built  in  honor  of  those  whom 
their  fathers  killed.  It  has  been  true  always,  it  will  be  true 
for  thousands  of  years,  that 

"By  the  light  of  burning  heretics  Christ's  bleeding  feet  I  track, 
Toiling  up  new  Calvaries  ever,  with  the  cross  that  turns  not  back ; 
And  these  mounts  of  anguish  number  how  each  generation  learned 
One  new  word  of  that  grand  Credo  which  in  prophet-hearts  hath  burned 
Since  the  first  man  stood,  God-conquered,  with  his  face  to  heaven  up- 
turned. 

"  Count  me  o'er  earth's  chosen  heroes :  they  were  souls  that  stood  alone, 

While  the  men  they  agonized  for  hurled  the  contumelious  stone, — 

Stood  serene,  and  down  the  future  saw  the  golden  beam  incline 

To  the  side  of  perfect  justice,  mastered  by  their  faith  divine, 

By  one  man's  plain  truth  to  manhood  and  to  God's  supreme  design." 

I  propose  now  to  ask  your  serious  consideration  of  what 
seem  to  me  a  few  of  the  adequate  causes  for  this  method  of 
human  progress.  I  offer  you  a  few,  out  of  many  reasons, 
why,  if  any  man,  or  any  church,  or  any  set  of  men  be  right, 
everybody  else  does  not  at  once  agree  with  him  or  them. 

i.  In  the  first  place,  I  wish  to  call  your  attention  to  a 
fact,  I  think  generally  overlooked,  that  even  the  capacity  for 
thought  has  a  physical  basis  in  the  brain  ;  and  that  thought, 
like  any  other  one  of  the  great  forces  of  the  universe,  follows 
the  line  of  least  resistance.  If  you  pour  out  water  on 
sloping  ground,  you  find  a  perfect  illustration  of  this.  It 


*jr   rm* 

UNIVERSITY 


If  you  arc  Right,  etc.  187 

follow  the  lines  of  least  resistance.  The  water  will  flow 
around  obstacles  and  seek  out  the  course  that  calls  for  the 
least  expenditure  of  force.  Now,  every  thought  is  accom- 
panied—  we  know  enough  of  science  to  understand  this  — 
by  certain  molecular  movements  in  the  brain ;  and  we  may 
well  enough  and  accurately  enough  picture  to  ourselves  the 
channels  like  a  pathway  worn  by  the  treading  of  many  feet, 
so  that  it  is  very  easy  for  thought  to  run  along  these  lines. 
And  it  is  always  an  effort  on  the  part  of  most  men,  and  some- 
times an  effort  so  painful  that  they  are  not  willing  to  put 
themselves  to  the  trouble,  to  wear  out  a  new  channel  of 
thought,  and  think  along  new  lines.  And,  indeed,  this  mat- 
ter goes  so  far  in  many  cases  as  to  be  a  practical  impossi- 
bility, for  at  least  a  time.  You  are  aware,  perhaps,  of  the 
fact  that  missionaries,  as  they  have  gone  to  certain  lower 
tribes  of  the  world  with  their  new  thoughts,  have  found  it 
simply  impossible  to  express  certain  ideas  so  that  they  could 
be  comprehended.  Why  ?  For  the  simple  reason  that  the 
people  had  never  entertained  those  ideas,  they  had  not  even 
developed  a  brain  capacity  for  entertaining  them.  For  you 
must  understand  that  the  development  of  the  brain  and  the 
development  of  thought  —  and  so  of  language  which  ex- 
presses thought  —  must  keep  step  forever.  If  there  is  a  new 
thought,  there  is  a  development  of  the  brain  that  matches 
it,  there  is  a  word  to  give  it  utterance ;  and,  if  people  have 
never  entertained  the  thought,  it  is  possible  that  there  is 
no  brain  capacity  for  entertaining  it, —  they  have  no  place  to 
put  it. 

To  illustrate  what  I  mean, —  and  this  illustration,  though 
a  humorous  one,  is  most  serious  in  its  reach  and  scope  and 
significance, —  I  remember  a  witty,  shrewd,  and  very  wise 
saying  of  that  famous  old  black  woman  who  during  the  war 
went  by  the  name  of  Sojourner  Truth,  one  of  the  most  elo- 


1 88  Religions  Reconstruction 

quent  tongues  brought  out  by  that  disturbed  period  of  our 
history.  She  knew  nothing  of  her  parents,  nothing  of  her 
name,  nothing  of  her  age ;  yet  she  spoke  as  one  inspired. 
In  the  presence  of  some  friends  one  day,  she  looked  at  one 
of  those  light-headed,  thoughtless  girls,  all  well  enough  in 
their  way,  yet  having  nothing  serious  about  them,  and  not 
being  developed  enough  to  have  even  the  possibility  of  en- 
tertaining serious  thought,  as  though  she  wanted  to  speak 
to  her ;  but,  with  a  little  sigh  she  let  it  pass,  and  turning  to 
her  friend,  with  a  humorous  smile  on  her  face,  said,  "I'd 
a  tole  dat  chile  suntmV,  only  I  see  she'd  no  place  to  put 
it."  There  are  thousands  of  people  in  the  world  to  whom, 
though  you  try  to  tell  them  things, —  new  thoughts,  new 
ideas, —  you  are  like  waves  that  beat  in  vain  against  some 
impervious  cliff;  for  they  have  no  place  to  put  them. 

2.  There  is  another  reason.  With  most  people,  relig- 
ious as  well  as  social  and  political  ideas  are  inherited  in 
the  same  sense  as  is  the  color  of  their  hair  or  eyes,  or  the 
capacity  to  understand  music  or  art.  Most  children  rightly 
and  naturally  adopt  the  ideas  of  the  family  into  which  they 
are  born,  the  ideas  of  father  and  mother  and  neighbors 
whom  they  hear  talk.  By  the  time  they  are  seventeen  years 
of  age,  or  from  there  to  twenty,  when  they  go  out  into  the 
world  into  business,  they  have  never  thought,  have  never 
studied,  have  never  considered  any  of  these  questions. 
They  read  only  the  newspapers  or  novels,  or  books  in  which 
they  casually  become  interested,  give  no  independent  orig- 
inal thought  to  any  of  these  questions.  And  it  is  no  fault 
of  theirs :  the  great  majority  of  people  have  no  time  for 
these  things ;  or,  at  any  rate,  their  attention  is  not  called  to 
them  in  a  way  that  impresses  upon  them  the  seriousness  and 
importance  of  their  giving  any  thought, —  for  I  really  suppose 
it  is  true  that  most  people  could  find  time  to  think,  if  they 


If  you  arc  Right,  etc.  189 

understood  that  it  was  of  any  serious  importance  to  them. 
I  clipped  from  the  Transcript  last  evening  some  words,  a 
few  of  which  I  wish  to  read  to  you  as  bearing  on  this  point, 
because  they  may  come  to  you  with  more  force  than  from  a 
minister  who  is  understood  to  be  pleading  a  cause.  They 
are  from  Mr.  Chauncey  M.  Depew,  in  a  speech  at  the  New 
York  Press  Club's  banquet:  "I  venture  to  predict — and  I 
can  prove  it,  if  necessary  —  that,  of  the  two  million  inhabi- 
tants of  this  town,  not  over  two  hundred  ever  think  at  all. 
They  talk  about  business  which  they  understand.  They  talk 
about  the  things  they  do,  about  their  family,  about  their 
church,  about  their  minister ;  but  it  is  all  shop.  It  has  not 
in  it  a  single  creation,  a  single  origination  of  their  own. 
They  have  lost  the  power  of  original  thought." 

So  much  Depew.  I  shall  be  inclined  to  say,  not  that 
they  have  lost  the  power  of  original  thought,  but  that  they 
have  not  developed  it.  You  cannot  lose  what  you  do  not 
possess. 

The  great  majority,  then,  of  the  world  has  not  been  trained 
to  independent  and  original  thought  in  these  directions;  and 
this  fact  is  one  of  the  most  important  points  in  answer  to 
this  question  as  to  why  the  great  majority  of  people  do  not 
at  once  embrace  new  and  advanced  ideas. 

3.  Another  important  point.  Most  people,  to  my  certain 
knowledge, —  I  only  need  to  remember  my  own  experience 
to  comprehend  this, —  not  only  inherit  certain  religious  ideas, 
and  live  such  lives  as  do  not  call  upon  them  for  any  new 
thought  concerning  them;  but  they  are  definitely  and  per- 
sistently trained,  as  the  Chinese  train  and  clip  and  cut  the 
products  of  their  gardens  into  particular  shapes.  Children 
are  trained  to  believe  that  these  ideas  are  right;  and  it  is 
enforced  upon  them  morning  and  night,  and  on  Sundays 
week  after  week,  year  after  year.  They  are  made  to  believe 


Religions  Reconstruction 

that  these  religious  ideas  which  their  fathers  have  enter- 
tained are  the  true  ones.  Not  only  that,  but  they  are  taught 
at  home,  in  the  Sunday-school,  in  the  religious  newspapers, 
and  in  the  religious  reviews  which  they  come  to  look  over  in 
later  life,  from  the  pulpit  persistently,  not  only  that  these 
ideas  are  true,  but  that  it  is  wicked  for  any  one  to  question 
their  correctness.  They  are  taught  that  the  only  supreme 
virtue  on  the  earth  is  faith, —  faith  in  the  sense  of  blind 
acceptance  of  what  you  are  told,  not  faith  in  that  grander 
sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  the  New  Testament,  for  the  New 
Testament  never  teaches  any  such  thing  as  this.  It  is  a  per- 
version of  what  Jesus  and  Paul  taught.  They  are  taught 
that  doubt  is  the  only  dangerous  sin ;  that  doubt  (I  have 
heard  it  preached,  and  you  have  probably)  is  a  more  danger- 
ous sin  than  any  other  that  a  man  can  possibly  be  guilty  of. 
He  may  commit  any  crime  j  but,  so  long  as  he  holds  to  the 
correct  theory  of  the  plan  of  salvation,  there  will  be  opportu- 
nity for  him  to  return  and  be  forgiven.  But,  if  he  doubt,  then 
every  pathway  is  closed. 

4.  Not  only  is  this  true  concerning  the  common  people  :  it 
is  true  concerning  clergymen, —  true  in  their  case  with  an  em- 
phasis.    When  I  was  passing  through  my  theological  career, 
it  was  impressed  upon  me,  not  that  I  was  to  search  fearlessly 
and  simply  all  over  the  world  to  find  the  truth  and  abide  by 
it,  but  that  I  was  to  be  a  sort  of  theological  West  Point  stu- 
dent, being  trained  into  fitness  for  position  as  a  subordinate 
officer  of  this  grand  army,  and  I  was  to  go  out  and  fight  for 
and  defend  these  opinions,  through  thick  and  thin,  my  life 
long.     That  is  the  kind  of  teaching  most  young  men  have 
received  in  their  preparatory  studies  for  the  pulpit.     Is  that 
a  good  preparation  for  their  acceptance  of  new  ideas? 

5.  The   religious   environment   of  people.     How  is  it  in 
regard  to  most  people  who  accept  what  are  called  evangeli- 


If  you  are  RigJit,  etc.  191 

cal  ideas  ?  Most  people,  as  you  are  aware,  judge  the  world 
by  their  own  door-yard,  or  the  immediate  circle  that  makes 
up  their  own  mental  horizon.  They  do  not  hear  the  other 
side.  They  are  taught  only  one  side.  They  take  only  their 
denominational  newspaper,  which  represents  what  they  be- 
lieve. They  take  only  the  denominational  review.  They 
hear  their  own  views  alone  preached  and  taught  and  talked. 
Why  should  they  change  ?  Why  should  they  adopt  the  ideas 
of  people  whose  thoughts  are  suspicious,  and  who  are  in  the 
wrong,  as  they  have  always  been  taught  ?  I  know  ministers, 
doctors  of  divinity,  who  say  frankly  to  friends  that  they  never 
allow  themselves  to  read  anything  which  would  tend  to  dis- 
turb their  opinions.  One  of  the  most  famous  of  the  Presby- 
terian doctors  of  divinity  of  America  told  a  friend  of  mine, 
another  doctor  of  divinity,  a  few  years  ago,  that  he  did  not 
consider  any  book  written  since  the  seventeenth  century 
worth  his  time  to  read.  If  a  man  lives  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
why  should  he  not  hold  Middle  Age  theology  ?  What  else 
can  you  expect  of  him  ?  This,  then,  is  the  kind  of  environ- 
ment in  which  people  live,  and  in  which  they  grow. 

6.  And  now  I  must  touch  on  one  other  point  of  immense 
practical  importance,  which  is  producing  to-day  a  mass  of 
dishonesty,  of  which  people  are  conscious  or  semi-conscious, 
that  is  simply  appalling.  This  is  the  matter  of  self-interest, 
as  it  turns  on  the  question  of  the  beliefs  you  will  hold.  Sup- 
pose you  go  to  England.  All  the  social  prestige  of  England, 
all  its  instituted  and  inherited  traditions,  all  its  organized 
wealth,  are  with  the  Establishment.  If  a  man  chooses  to  step 
out  of  the  Established  Church  in  England  and  become  a  dis- 
senter, he  loses  caste,  he  loses  social  position.  Suppose  a 
young  clergyman  chooses  to  follow  his  convictions,  and  steps 
out  of  the  pulpit, —  not  into  another  church,  for  they  allow 
nothing  to  be  called  a  "church"  but  the  Establishment,  but 


1 92  Religious  Reconstruction 

into  a  "  chapel."  He  loses  his  social  position,  he  loses  the 
circle  of  friends  in  which  he  has  been  trained,  the  position 
which  he  had  gained  on  the  ladder  of  preferment,  with  possi- 
bly a  bishopric  at  the  top,  perhaps  Canterbury,  if  one  have 
brain  and  ability  for  it.  He  must  give  up  all  these  for  the 
sake  of  being  looked  on  as  peculiar,  odd,  regarded  with  sus- 
picion by  his  friends  and  with  tears  and  sorrow  by  those  who 
love  him. 

How  is  it  in  this  country?  I  have  in  my  hand  a  letter 
written  by  a  school-teacher  in  one  of  the  Western  States, 
appealing  to  me  in  the  most  touching  way  as  to  what  she 
ought  to  do.  She  is  where  there  is  no  Unitarian  or  other 
liberal  church.  She  has  been  a  teacher  for  years,  and  has 
also  been  associated  with  the  young  people  of  the  place.  She 
has  been  connected  with  the  orthodox  church,  and  a  teacher 
in  the  Sunday-school ;  but  she  has  become  a  liberal.  "  What 
shall  I  do  ? "  she  asks.  "I  have  given  up  my  Sunday-school 
class,  because  I  could  not  honestly  teach  it.  If  my  opinions 
become  known,  I  shall  probably  lose  my  position  as  teacher 
and  be  looked  on  with  suspicion.  Mothers  will  not  wish  their 
daughters  under  my  influence,  and  I  shall  have  only  a  life  of 
isolation.  What  shall  I  do  ? ' 

I  have  here  a  letter  from  a  young  lawyer  in  Kansas,  who 
does  not  dare  to  let  it  be  known  what  his  opinions  are,  or 
he  would  get  no  practice.  I  had  a  letter  not  long  ago  from 
another  young  lawyer  in  Kentucky,  saying  precisely  the  same 
thing.  A  friend  of  mine,  a  business  man  of  Philadelphia, 
who  is  a  good  deal  of  a  propagandist  of  these  ideas,  told  me 
not  long  ago  that  it  was  fortunate  for  him  that  his  business 
was  not  a  local  one,  but  was  extended  all  over  the  country, 
for,  if  it  were  confined  to  that  city,  he  would  be  obliged  to 
fail  or  to  stop  talking.  A  leading  professor  in  one  of  the 
great  universities  of  this  country,  within  three  years,  declined 


If  y 'ou  are  Right,  etc.  193 

to  introduce  me  as  a  lecturer  before  a  public  audience  in  one 
of  our  large  cities,  not  because  he  did  not  sympathize  with 
me,  but  lest  he  should  lose  his  professorship  in  the  institution. 
I  received  a  letter  from  an  aged  clergyman  in  Connecticut,  in 
which  he  said :  "  I  rejoice  in  every  particle  of  work  you  are 
doing.  I  wish  I  could  do  the  same ;  but  here  I  am,  an  old 
man,  a  family  dependent  on  me,  too  old  to  enter  any  new 
profession,  too  old  to  fight  my  way  to  a  place  in  the  old  pro- 
fession in  a  new  field.  I  cannot  speak  out  my  heart,  because 
it  means  taking  the  bread  out  of  the  mouths  of  my  wife  and 
children."  In  one  of  the  cities  of  this  State,  which  we  call 
our  free  and  glorious  Commonwealth,  when  a  new  family 
moves  into  it,  they  are  waited  on  by  a  committee,  who  tell 
them  that,  if  they  have  anything  to  do  with  the  Unitarian 
church,  it  may  cost  them  their  position.  This  at  least  has 
been  true  within  a  few  years.  Is  it  any  wonder  that,  if  you 
are  right,  everybody  does  not  agree  with  you  ?  When  I 
look  at  hindrances  like  this  that  stand  in  the  way  of  the 
advance  of  new  thought,  I  wonder  not  that  it  gets  on  slowly, 
but  that  it  ever  gets  on  at  all. 

I  wish  now  to  consider  one  or  two  supplementary  points. 
How  does  it  happen  that  people  look  thus  with  suspicion  and 
hatred  upon  those  that  differ  from  them  as  to  their  ideas  ?  It 
is  a  curious  fact,  but  a  fact  that  we  all  have  to  recognize,  that 
any  marked  difference  from  those  about  us  calls  out  suspicion 
at  once.  We  have  a  saying,  "  Better  be  out  of  the  world  than 
out  of  the  fashion."  The  first  time  that  an  inventive  genius 
made  an  umbrella,  and  appeared  with  it  on  the  streets  of 
London  in  a  rain-storm,  he  was  greeted  with  jeers,  and  was 
hooted  by  the  crowd  the  whole  of  his  walk,  because  nobody 
had  ever  seen  such  a  thing  before.  If  you  choose  to  differ 
from  your  fellows,  you  must  pay  the  penalty  of  being  looked 
on  with  suspicion  until  you  can  prove  that  your  position  has 


194  Religious  Reconstruction 

general  utility  under  it.     We  have  inherited  this  peculiarity 
from  the  lower  animals,  and  cannot  claim  the  distinction  of 
having  it  to  ourselves.     If  a  hill  of   ants  discover  in  their 
number  a  strange  ant,  one  that  does  not  look  like  them,  they 
proceed  to  kill  it  at  once.     In  almost  all  tribes  of  lower  ani- 
mals and  birds,  if  there  happens  so  unfortunate  a  thing — 
unfortunate  for  the  victim  —  as  for  a  specimen  to  be  born 
that  differs  largely  from  its  parents,  the  chances  for  his  living 
to  grow  up  are  exceedingly  small.*     We  do  not  know  how  to 
account  for  this  peculiarity ;  but  there  seems  to  me  some  rea- 
son why  a  person  is  proscribed  if  he  dares  to  differ  from  his 
fellows.     Do  you  not  see  what  it  implies  ?     Suppose  I  charge 
you  all  with  being  in  the  wrong.     The  instinct  of  self-defence 
is  roused  at  once.     You  say,  Who  is  this  upstart  who  charges 
the  whole  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  with  being  wrong, 
while  he  alone,  the  thousandth,  is  right?     A  sense  of  indi- 
vidual pride  is  roused.     People  look   upon   their  personal 
opinions  as  in  some  sense  their  prerogative,  their  property; 
and  they  resent  it  when  a  man  attempts  to  take  it  away  from 
them.     They  have  not  yet  learned,  what  I  hope  the  world  will 
some  time  be  wise  enough  to  understand,  that  no  man  has 
any  proprietary  right  in  anything  but  truth.     No  man  has  a 
right  to  his  opinions.     He  has  a  right  to  find  out  whether 
they  are  true, —  that  is  all.     But,  if  a  man  charges  others  with 
being  wrong,  it  is  an  imputation  against  their  intelligence,  it 
touches  their  pride,  it  hurts  their  sense  of  dignity;  and  they 
are  not  going  to  submit  to  it,  if  they  can  help  it.     So  nine 
times  out  of  ten,  when  people  enter  into  an  argument,  they 
are  not  so  anxious  to  learn  the  truth  as  each  to  conquer  the 
other. 

I  wish  now  at  the  close  to  outline  and  elaborate,  so  far  as  I 

*  Unless  the  variation  is  one  that  gives  some  decided  advantage  in  the  struggle 
for  life. 


If  y 'ou  arc  Right,  etc.  195 

may,  one  grand  truth, —  a  truth  that  both  conservative  people 
and  radical  people  need  to  learn.  A  study  of  the  natural 
world  around  us  everywhere  reveals  the  fact  that  there  are 
two  forces  at  work, —  forces  that  appear  to  be  antagonistic, 
in  perpetual  conflict,  but  which  yet  are  only  helping  on  each 
other.  They  are  the  forces  that  we  speak  of  in  religion  as 
the  conservative  and  the  radical  forces.  What  are  they  in 
the  natural  world?  Converse  with  some  scientist  about 
them,  and  he  will  tell  you  that  these  two  forces  are  hered- 
ity and  the  tendency  to  variation.  That  is,  suppose  a 
chicken  is  hatched  from  an  egg,  heredity  tends  to  repro- 
duce precisely  the  kind  of  chicken  that  laid  the  egg.  But 
there  is  also  this  tendency  to  vary,  so  that  almost  always 
you  will  find  certain  variations  in  size,  shape,  or  color.  So 
with  the  growth  of  every  tree.  From  the  acorn  that  is 
planted,  you  will  find  an  oak  that  is  substantially  like  the 
one  that  bore  the  acorn,  but  differing  in  minor  details  at 
least.  So  these  two  forces  of  heredity  and  variation  are 
always  at  work ;  and  these  are  the  conservative  and  radical 
forces  of  the  religious  world.  We  need  them  both.  If  you 
simply  allow  the  conservative  force  to  become  dominant, 
you  go  on  age  after  age  repeating  the  past  and  never  im- 
proving on  it.  If  the  radical  should  become  supreme,  you 
would  lose  the  type,  the  form.  Everything  would  fall  into 
chaos. 

Human  progress,  then,  means  this, —  enough  of  the  con- 
servative force  to  hold  to  the  type,  to  the  form,  and  enough 
of  freedom  and  variation  to  develop,  enlarge,  widen,  deepen, 
reach  out  to  something  higher  and  better  along  the  lines  that 
heredity  tends  to  repeat. 

So  what  we  need  in  religion  is  not  that  people  should 
tauntingly  ask  the  question,  If  you  are  right,  why  does  not 
everybody  agree  with  you?  nor  that,  on  the  other  side, 


196  Religious  Reconstruction 

persons  should  tauntingly  reply,  From  the  beginning  of  the 
world,  the  minority  has  always  been  right;  and,  therefore,  I 
am.  Neither  of  these  is  true.  On  both  sides,  we  need  to 
understand  that  perhaps  the  old  is  right ;  at  least,  the  old 
has  something  that  must  never  be  lost,  for  the  finest  blos- 
soms on  the  -top  of  the  tree  would  wither  without  the  root. 
We  need  to  keep  our  root  firm  fixed  in  the  soil  of  the  ages ; 
and  then  we  need  freedom  to  blossom  and  develop  new  and 
finer  fruit. 


HERESY  AND  CONFORMITY. 


I  WISH  to  address  the  thousands  of  persons  who,  in  the 
modern  world,  have  found  out  more  or  less  clearly  that  they 
are  heretics,  but  who  still,  for  one  reason  or  another,  are 
conformists, —  those  who  have  not  yet  followed  the  logic  of 
their  thought,  who  hesitate  to  live  out  that  which  they 
believe. 

As  preliminary  to  this,  however,  I  wish  to  discuss  with  you 
the  significance  of  heresy,  and  let  you  see  the  necessity  of 
this  process  through  which  we  are  passing  at  present.  We 
talk  about  this  as  a  transition  age ;  and  it  is  so,  in  a  sense 
more  important,  perhaps,  than  any  other  that  the  world 
ever  saw;  and  yet  it  is  not  so  peculiar  as  this  statement  may 
make  it  appear,  for  something  similar  to  this  process  has  of 
necessity  always  been  going  on  in  a  world  where  there 
has  been  growth.  Heresy  is  nothing  more  nor  less  than  a 
new  growth, —  something  that  the  world  has  not  seen  before, 
some  new  twig,  some  new  leaf,  bourgeoning  out  of  the  old 
stalk.  Every  new  thing  that  the  world  ever  saw,  every  new 
step  of  advance,  every  new  manifestation  of  life,  was  in  its 
time  a  heresy.  This  is  a  part  of  the  law  of  this  planet  of 
which  we  are  inhabitants.  Before  men  appeared,  a  similar 
process  to  this,  only  among  the  lower  forms  of  life,  was 
going  on.  At  first,  life  appeared  in  very  low  types.  Then 
came  the  fishes,  the  reptiles ;  but  soon,  above  and  beyond 
these,  the  birds  appeared.  The  whole  bird  race  was  heret- 


198  Religions  Reconstruction 

ical,  as  compared  with  the  life  that  had  manifested  itself  in 
the  ages  that  had  gone  before.  It  was  something  new,  that 
the  world  had  not  seen ;  and  when,  springing  out  of  this 
bird  race,  there  came  one  with  more  beautiful  plumage,  with 
a  sweeter  song,  some  new  species,  this  again  was  heretical, 
not  only  as  compared  with  the  lower  forms  of  life,  but  as 
compared  with  all  its  fellows.  And  when  man  appeared, — 
this  being  standing  upright  on  his  feet,  thinking  his  own 
thoughts,  saying  /,  and  looking  the  heavens  in  the  face, — 
the  questioning  began  that  has  not  ceased  yet,  and  that  never 
shall.  He  was  the  grandest  of  heretical  manifestations. 
The  moment  that  human  life  appeared,  and  the  possibility 
of  human  growth,  then  came  the  perpetual  manifestation  of 
this  process  through  which  we  are  still  passing.  Orthodoxy 
once  meant  the  lowest  type  of  fetich  worship.  He  who 
disregarded  this,  and  began  to  worship  the  winds  or  the 
sun  or  the  stars,  was  a  heretic,  as  compared  with  all  the 
past.  He  had  taken  a  step  onward,  a  step  toward  something 
higher.  And  when,  by  and  by,  out  of  all  the  fetichism  of 
the  ages  there  sprang  the  grand  thought  which  Israel  con- 
tributed toward  the  civilization  of  man, —  "  The  Lord  our  God 
is  one,"  —  that  was  heresy,  the  heresy  that  antiquated  all 
the  past,  the  heresy  that  condemned  the  old,  the  heresy  that 
challenged  the  higher  thought  and  the  higher  life  of  the 
race.  Moses,  then,  in  his  day  was  one  of  the  grandest 
heretics  of  the  world.  And,  when  Isaiah  appeared  with  his 
higher  thought,  a  new  heresy  came  to  disturb  the  compla- 
cency of  those  who  had  supposed  everything  to  be  estab- 
lished. When  Jesus  came  with  a  still  grander  conception 
of  God  and  man,  this  was  a  more  magnificent  heresy  still, — 
the  departure  from  that  which  was  established  in  the  light 
of  the  temple,  the  instituted  religion  of  the  people,  something 
to  be  outcast,  condemned,  and  trodden  under  foot.  So  it 


Heresy  and  Conformity  199 

has  been  from  that  day  till  this.  Paul  was  a  heretic.  All 
the  great  leaders  of  the  world's  thought  were  heretics  in 
their  day.  It  is  curious  that  the  world  learns  so  slowly. 
One  of  these  men  starts  out,  and  leads  the  world  forward. 
He  gathers  followers  about  him  until  he  is  considered  re- 
spectable, and  the  ideas  that  he  has  taught  the  race  are 
established.  They  are  incarnated  in  institutions,  churches, 
rituals,  services.  But  these  men  seem  to  forget  that  the 
universe  has  not  yet  attained  its  final  growth.  They  seem 
to  forget  that  the  very  founder  whom  they  revere  was  once 
a  leader  and  dared  to  step  out,  even  beyond  the  lines  of  the 
front  rank  of  his  age ;  and  in  his  name  they  condemn,  per- 
secute, and  kill  some  new  man,  who,  manifesting  the  same 
spirit,  the  same  divine  impulse,  the  same  wisdom  of  leader- 
ship, asserts  the  new  truth  that  he  sees,  and  challenges  the 
race  to  one  step  further  in  advance.  So  it  is  the  followers 
of  the  world's  heretics  who  persecute  the  new  heretics  of 
each  new  age.  And  yet,  as  I  said  to  you,  this  is  a  necessary 
part  of  the  world's  process  of  development. 

Who  is  responsible  for  this  ?  This  is  the  point  that  I  wish 
to  make  prominent  and  to  emphasize.  Who  is  responsible 
for  these  transition  times  ?  The  man  who  is  at  ease  in  his 
old  ideas,  and  who  does  not  care  to  be  disturbed,  is  apt  to 
strike  out  with  a  sort  of  resentment  against  the  man  who 
awakes  him,  and  asks  him  to  open  his  eyes  and  see  what  is 
going  on.  But  the  man  who  asks  another  to  see  what  is 
going  on  is  not  responsible  for  that  which  is  going  on. 
Galileo  in  his  time  was  punished  for  what  ?  Because  he 
dared  to  look  through  a  telescope  and  see  something  in  the 
heavens  that  had  never  been  seen  before.  But  Galileo  did 
not  create  the  moons  of  Jupiter :  they  had  been  there  all  the 
while.  He  who  swung  them  in  their  glorious  orbits,  not  he 
who  simply  reported  that  they  were  shining, —  He  who  created 


2OO  Religious  Reconstruction 

the  heavens  and  the  earth, —  he  is  responsible  for  whatever  is. 
Spencer,  Darwin,  Wallace,  and  their  compeers  and  fellow- 
workers,  are  not  responsible  for  the  fact  that  there  never 
was  any  Garden  of  Eden,  and  that  man  was  not  created 
instantly  out  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and  that  suddenly  the 
breath  of  life  was  not  breathed  into  his  nostrils  by  a  super- 
natural act.  These  men  did  not  create  the  fact  of  evolution, 
—  the  fact  that  we  are  developed  from  lower  forms  of  life 
on  the  earth,  and  have  come  to  be  what  we  are  by  a  purely 
natural  process  of  age-long  development. 

Darwin  did  not  make  the  fact  that  he  reports.  It  simply 
means  that  a  larger  revelation  from  God  has  come  to  man, — 
that  we  see  more  than  our  fathers  saw.  But  just  as  it  was 
the  old  moons  that  had  always  swung  in  the  heavens  that 
Galileo  saw,  so  it  is  the  old  truth,  forever  true, —  as  true 
while  men  were  worshipping  fetiches  as  to-day, —  that  Dar- 
win and  Spencer  and  Wallace  and  these  men  have  seen  and 
uttered  for  the  enlightenment  and  lifting  up  of  their  race. 
Who  is  responsible,  then,  for  these  transition  times, —  re- 
sponsible for  the  fact  that  we  cannot  keep  still,  responsible 
for  the  fact  that  a  new  enlargement  of  brain  and  a  wider 
power  of  thought  reveal  things  that  had  never  been  seen 
before  ?  Who  is  responsible  for  all  this  ?  Certainly  not  the 
men  who  merely  note  their  observations,  and  tell  their  fel- 
lows what  they  have  found.  If  any  one  is  to  blame  for  the 
fact  that  you  cannot  keep  an  acorn  an  acorn  forever,  but 
that,  placed  in  certain  conditions,  it  will  inevitably  germinate 
and  break  open  its  shell,  and  turn  itself  into  an  oak,  adding 
something  to  its  size  day  by  day,  reaching  out  its  branches 
wider  and  wider, —  if  any  one,  I  say,  is  responsible  for  this, 
it  surely  is  the  one  who  is  the  origin  of  the  force  that  is 
manifested  in  the  acorn  and  the  oak.  And  who  is  respon- 
sible for  the  fact  that  you  cannot  press  down  human  thought, 


Heresy  and  Conformity  201 

but  that  it  will  germinate,  will  burst  its  old  shell,  will  make 
room  for  itself  ?  He  who  is  responsible  for  this  is  surely 
he  who  is  the  life-force  and  the  impulse  by  which  this  race 
of  ours  has  gone  forward  from  the  beginning  until  the  pres- 
ent hour.  So  this  manifestation  of  heresy  is  not  something 
to  be  deplored  as  the  wickedness  of  any  wicked  men.  It  is 
not  something  to  be  lamented  as  the  outcome  of  the  restless- 
ness of  certain  people  who  ought  to  be  contented  with  what 
has  been.  It  is  a  part  of  the  result  of  the  undying  impulse 
of  God  manifesting  itself  through  the  life-growth  of  the  race. 
It  is  God  speaking  to  the  world  to-day,  as  he  is  said  to  have 
spoken  to  the 'leaders  of  Israel  when,  after  they  had  gone 
out  of  Egypt,  they  stood  trembling  on  the  brink  of  the  Red 
Sea,  hesitating  to  cross :  "  Why  criest  thou  unto  me  ?  Speak 
to  the  children  of  Israel,  that  they  go  forward."  There  is 
the  secret  of  heresy.  It  is  God's  voice,  bidding  the  world  up 
and  on. 

And  yet  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  men  hesitate,  that 
men  tremble,  that  they  even  shrink,  and  wish  that  they  might 
go  back.  Consider  the  condition  of  those  poor  Israelites 
to  whom  I  have  just  referred.  They  had,  indeed,  borne  a 
heavy  bondage  in  Egypt.  Release  had  been  promised  to 
them  year  after  year.  They  had  looked  forward  to  just  this 
hour  of  escape  from  the  hands  of  their  task-masters.  They 
had  come  to  the  crisis  point,  and  had  left  their  homes.  But 
a  new  danger  —  a  danger  appalling  because  unknown,  a 
danger  that  seemed  all  the  greater  because  undefined  — 
stared  them  in  the  face.  Then  they  remembered  :  "  Yes,  we 
did  have  hard  work  in  Egypt, —  heavy  burdens  were  laid  on 
our  shoulders,  more  than  we  were  able  to  fulfil  was  required 
of  us  ;  but,  at  any  rate,  we  had  a  comfortable  place  to  sleep, 
we  had  food  assured  to  us  every  day,  we  had  shelter  against 
the  storm,  we  had  homes."  And,  however  uncomfortable 


2O2  Religious  Reconstruction 

they  may  be,  there  is  a  charm  about  that  word  "  home  "  that 
makes  one  shrink  from  facing  a  wilderness.  Here  they 
were  compelled  to  cross  the  rough  sea,  and  go  out,  nobody 
knew  whither, —  go  out  into  the  desert  shelterless,  trusting  to 
God ;  and  men  do  not  find  it  easy,  when  the  trial  comes,  to 
trust  in  God,  for  food,  for  shelter,  for  leadership, —  a  lead- 
ership toward  what  nobody  knows.  A  land  was  promised 
them,  but  it  was  far  away.  Years  of  toil  and  trouble  were 
between  them  and  it,  and  perhaps  the  possibility  of  death  on 
the  way.  When  they  had  reached  it,  they  did  not  feel  quite 
sure  that  it  would  be  any  more  attractive  to  them  than  what 
they  were  leaving. 

So  it  is  not  strange  that  these  human  hearts  hesitate  to 
obey  even  the  voice  of  God,  when  he  bids  them  go  out  into 
the  unknown.  I  have  all  sympathy  with  those  who  shrink 
from  doing  it,  perhaps  more  than  you  have  who  were  trained 
in  the  Unitarian  belief.  You  do  not  know  what  it  means. 
I  do.  I  know  what  it  means  to  turn  away  from  friends,  and 
have  them  feel  that  you  are  turning  away  from  them  and 
taking  a  path  that  means  final  separation.  I  know  what  it 
means  to  hurt  them  by  this  course,  to  bruise  their  hearts, 
their  sympathies,  and  have  them  feel  that  you  are  perhaps 
wantonly  wounding  them,  have  them  feel  that  you  are  obey- 
ing a  voice  that  is  not  divine  and  going  a  path  that  is  not 
right.  I  know  what  it  means  to  turn  away  from  old  associ- 
ations, where  you  have  become  wonted,  where  everything  is 
pleasant  and  agreeable,  where  there  seems  a  pathway  of  pre- 
ferment before  you,  where  there  are  worldly  advantages  to 
be  flung  one  side.  I  know  what  it  means  to  shrink  from  the 
suggestion  of  the  higher  truth  with  a  fear  that  it  may  be  a 
voice  of  a  tempter  from  beneath.  I  remember  well  the  first 
time  I  ever  read  a  Unitarian  tract,  feeling  that  I  would  give 
my  life,  if  I  dared  believe  it,  and  yet  flinging  it  away  with 


Heresy  and  Conformity  203 

fear.  I  know  what  it  means  to  leave  old  associations,  and 
go  out  without  knowing  whether  you  have  anywhere  to  go  or 
not ;  and  it  is  not  easy.  I  have  only  tender  sympathy,  not 
for  those  who  refuse  to  obey,  but  for  those  who  obey  with 
aching  hearts,  for  those  who  stand  trembling  on  the  brink, 
and  who  wait  and  look  back  a  little.  It  always  seemed  hard 
the  way  Lot's  wife  was  treated.  I  do  not  wonder  at  her. 
She  did  not  refuse  to  go.  She  was  going.  I  do  not  wonder 
that  she  wanted  to  look  back  towards  home  for  a  moment. 
Even  though  that  home  was  in  Sodom,  it  was  home ;  and  she 
was  going  to  a  place  that  was  not  home.  Her  fate  always 
seemed  to  me  a  little  severe. 

Suppose  a  family  who  have  been  born  and  trained  amid 
our  New  England  hills  make  up  their  mind  to  emigrate  to 
the  West.  They  have  found  home  and  farm  too  narrow  for 
them.  They  have  learned  that  the  boys  cannot  stay  with 
them  here,  that  there  is  no  opening  for  them,  and  that  they 
mus-t  seek  a  larger  and  a  wider  opportunity.  They  make  up 
their  mind  to  go.  They  sell  their  farm,  pack  up  their  goods, 
and  are  ready  to  depart.  Do  you  wonder  if  then  there  comes 
over  them  a  flood  of  loving  memories  of  the  life  which  they 
have  lived  here  from  childhood  ?  Would  you  wonder  if  the 
mother  should  take  a  last  look  at  the  rooms,  and  shed  some 
tears  as  she  thought :  "  Here  one  of  my  children  was  born. 
Here  I  nursed  another  through  a  dangerous  illness.  Here 
we  sat  around  the  fireside  in  the  evening,  and  laughed  and 
talked  and  played  together  "  ?  Do  you  wonder  that  the  ad- 
vantages of  the  new  home  become  a  little  dim,  as  they  are 
looked  at  through  tears  ?  and  do  you  wonder  that,  after  they 
have  gained  the  new,  though  they  do  not  repent  it,  they  still 
remember  with  tenderness  the  old  associations,  and  that  it 
takes  years  for  them  to  call  around  them  those  influences 
about  which  the  sentiments  can  cling  as  they  used  to  cling 


2O4  Religious  Reconstruction 

to  the  old  ?  We  must  remember  —  and  this  is  not  only  true, 
but  it  is  of  practical  power  as  a  guide  —  that  sentiment  does 
not  attach  itself  to  anything  because  that  thing  is  true. 
Sentiment  is  no  guide  at  all  as  to  the  matter  of  truth. 
Sentiment  means  simply  time,  habit,  association;  sentiment 
is  the  weather  color  that  comes  over  the  old  walls  ;  it  is  the 
vine  that  springs  up  and  clothes  the  nakedness  of  the  new 
associations,  smoothing  off  the  rough  corners.  Sentiment 
can  attach  itself  to  anything  to  which  we  are  wonted,  but  it 
takes  time.  No  matter  how  much  finer  your  new  home  may 
be,  you  cannot  possibly  gain  this  association  or  sentiment 
until  time  has  given  opportunity  for  its  natural  growth.  So 
it  is  no  wonder  that  people  hesitate.  And  yet,  if  men  allow 
sentiment  to  be  the  controlling  power  of  their  lives  in  mat- 
ters of  this  sort,  the'y  not  only  retard  the  growth  of  their  own 
souls,  but  they  stand  in  the  way  of  the  welfare  of  their  chil- 
dren. They  barter,  for  a  feeling,  the  higher  life  of  mankind. 
And,  when  sentiment  is  thus  allowed  to  be  a  substitute  for 
conviction,  it  becomes  an  injury  to  the  life,  a  wrong  to  the 
soul. 

I  wish  now  to  pass  in  review  as  rapidly  as  I  may  a  few  of 
the  classes  of  those  who  are  hesitating,  that,  if  possible,  I 
may  suggest  some  helpful  word  to  each.  There  are  certain 
classes  of  people  who  have  found  out  that  they  do  not  be- 
lieve the  old,  and  still  hesitate  to  associate  themselves  frankly 
and  fully  with  the  new.  There  are  certain  other  classes 
governed  by  a  different  motive.  A  few  of  these  I  wish  to 
point  out,  and  touch  upon  some  suggestions  of  assistance,  of 
advice,  of  warning,  if  they  are  needed. 

There  are,  first,  large  numbers  of  people  who  have  found 
out  that  they  are  not  orthodox,  but  who  as  yet  do  not  know 
whether  there  is  any  spiritual  home  for  them  anywhere  else ; 
and  so  they  are  waiting  for  further  light,  or  perhaps  they 


Heresy  and  Conformity  20$ 

wait  so  long  that  they  lose  the  impulse  which  moved  them, 
and  go  no  further,  or,  under  the  impulse  of  some  reaction, 
they  go  back  again.  Some  fear  sweeps  over  them  ;  and  they 
rush  back  within  the  bounds  which  they  left,  certain  there,  as 
it  seems  to  them,  of  a  place  of  safety.  What  shall  people 
like  this  do  ?  I  remember  the  time  when  I  stood  in  pre- 
cisely this  position.  I  was  invited  to  become  the  occupant 
of  a  Unitarian  pulpit  before  I  knew  whether  I  was  a  Unita- 
rian or  not.  I  had  simply  found  out  that  I  did  not  belong 
with  the  old;  but  whether  there  was  any  place  under  the 
light  of  God's  sky  where  I  did  belong  I  had  not  discovered. 
So  there  are  thousands  of  people  in  this  position, —  the  most 
of  them,  perhaps,  in  the  pew.  And,  if  you  are  in  this  state 
of  mind  and  are  in  the  pew,  thank  God  for  so  much  as  that ; 
for  you  are  at  least  relieved  of  the  necessity  and  'the  fearful 
responsibility  of  speaking  from  the  pulpit  to  your  fellows 
from  week  to  week,  every  week  of  your  life, —  while  uncertain 
as  to  which  pathway  you  yourself  should  tread,  pointing  out 
a  way  for  other  feet.  One  thing :  if  you  are  a  clergyman  in 
this  position,  do  not  dare  to  speak  any  word  that  you  do  not 
believe  with  your  whole  soul.  Leave  unsaid  a  million  words, 
if  you  will,  but  what  you  do  speak  speak  out  of  your  deepest 
convictions  ;  and,  whether  in  pulpit  or  pew,  those  of  you  who 
occupy  this  position,  do  not  dare  to  stop.  Convince  your- 
self, by  some  process  of  thought,  either  that  the  old  is  true  or 
that  the  new  is  true.  Find  some  place  in  which  you  can 
believe  with  your  whole  soul,  and  do  not  rest  until  you  find 
it.  On  the  other  hand,  do  not  be  in  haste.  Many  a  man 
and  many  a  woman  has  been  wrecked  on  some  half-belief, 
because  of  too  much  hurry. 

Take  time.  One  of  the  hardest  things  for  most  people  to 
do  is  to  hold  their  minds  in  a  condition  of  suspense.  People 
want  to  settle  down  somewhere.  To  stand  and  hesitate  is 


206  Religious  Reconstruction 

painful.  But  you  would  better  stand  and  hesitate  until  the 
last  day  you  live  than  to  make  up  your  mind  wrongly. 
How  shall  you  be  sure  of  the  truth  ?  You  may  not  be  able 
to  be  sure  of  it. 

People  have  said  to  me,  as  though  it  were  an  apology  for 
their  course,  I  decided  under  one  impulse  or  another,  because 
I  became  hopeless  of  being  able  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of 
either  side.  You  may  not  be  able  to  demonstrate  the  truth 
of  either  side.  But  concerning  two  propositions,  if  one 
weighs  them  candidly,  there  must  be  more  evidence  in 
favor  of  one  than  of  the  other.  As  a  preliminary  step, 
take  that  which  has  more  proof  rather  than  that  which  has 
less.  Go  with  that  side  which  seems  to  you  to  be  the  near- 
est to  the  truth ;  and  all  the  while  and  every  day  dare  not  to 
seal  up  your  soul ;  keep  it  open  for  any  new  light,  any  new 
truth  that  may  come  to  you,  and  be  ready  to  heed  a  ray  of 
God's  sunlight  as  his  direct  command.  Do  not  be  alarmed 
because  you  find  yourself  in  this  condition,  in  this  new  fog. 
There  is  no  surer  proof  that  there  is  sunshine  than  the  fact 
that  you  are  lost  in  a  fog-bank.  There  would  be  no  fog 
in  the  universe  if  there  were  no  light.  It  is  sunshine  that 
makes  all  the  mist.  There  is  sunshine  above,  beyond,  and 
all  around  the  fog-bank ;  and,  if  you  have  gone  into  it  from 
this  side,  you  will  be  sure  to  get  out  into  the  light,  if  you  go 
through,  just  as  sure  as  if  you  were  to  turn  and  come  back. 
There  are  two  ways  of  getting  out  of  the  Slough  of  Despond. 
Christian  and  Pliable  both  got  into  the  Slough.  Pliable  went 
back,  and  got  out  of  it  in  that  way.  Christian  went  through, 
and  came  out  on  the  side  towards  the  Celestial  City.  I  be- 
lieve that  is  the  better  example  to  follow. 

Then  there  is  a  class  of  people  who  shrink  and  rush  back 
into  the  past  merely  because  they  become  frightened  and, 
under  the  impulse  of  fear,  cling  to  what  they  believe  to  be 


Heresy  and  Conformity  207 

a  safe  retreat.  Tennyson  speaks  of  its  being  a  question 
whether  we  should  disturb  our  sister's  faith  in  "her  early 
heaven  "  ;  but  he  forgets  that  this  same  sister  with  a  faith 
in  her  early  heaven  has  also  a  faith  in  her  early  hell  which 
we  shall  disturb,  and  that  it  may  be  a  question  whether  we 
had  not  better  disturb  that  fear. 

Dr.  Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  has  sung,  not,  I  think,  as  voic- 
ing his  own  thought  so  much  as  the  thought  of  many  others, 
this  fear  challenging  new  ideas  :  — 

"  Is  this  the  whole  sad  story  of  creation, 

Lived  by  its  breathing  myriads  o'er  and  o'er, — 
One  glimpse  of  day,  then  black  annihilation, — 
A  sunlit  passage  to  a  sunless  shore  ? 

"  Give  back  our  faith,  ye  mystery-solving  lynxes  ! 
Robe  us  once  more  in  heaven-aspiring  creeds ! 
Better  was  dreaming  Egypt  with  her  sphinxes, 
The  stony  convent  with  its  cross  and  beads !  " 

Under  the  impulse  of  a  feeling  like  this,  men  like  Cardinal 
Manning  and  Cardinal  Newman,  and  hundreds  of  others, 
have  rushed  back  and  into  the  old  creeds,  as  though  they 
were  secure  fortresses,  a  place  of  escape  from  modern 
thought.  But  it  seems  to  me  they  forget  that  there  may 
be  good  in  the  new  as  well  as  in  the  old.  They  forget  the 
horrors  connected  with  the  Egyptian  sphinxes  and  the  life 
surrounding  them.  They  forget  the  dungeon  beneath  the 
"stony  convent"  which  was  a  refuge  for  so  many  weary 
souls ;  as  a  bird  might  build  its  nest  in  some  old  castle,  some 
old  Middle  Age  turret,  unconscious  of  the  horrors  down  deep 
at  its  foundations.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  worth  while  to 
disturb  people,  even  if  they  are  dreaming  of  beautiful  things 
connected  with  the  old,  for  the  reason  that  the  beautiful 
things  are  not  all.  In  the  old  foundations  are  horrors,  insult 


2O8  Religious  Reconstruction 

to  God,  lack  of  hope  for  man.  You  have  no  right  to  fall  back 
into  a  safe  place,  taking  merely  the  sunshine  and  the  joy  and 
the  hope,  and  forgetting  all  the  rest. 

There  is  another  class  of  people  —  I  alluded  to  them  last 
Sunday  —  who  do  not  believe  in  the  old,  yet  hesitate,  on 
account  of  personal  interest  or  because  of  personal  disability 
that  will  necessarily  attach  to  their  going  forward  into  the 
new.  I  told  you  of  a  teacher  in  the  West  who  had  written 
me  a  letter  saying  that  there  was  no  Unitarian  church  there, 
and  that  if  she  lived  out  what  she  was  she  would  become  an 
object  of  suspicion,  and  might  perhaps  lose  her  place  and 
the  sympathy  of  the  mothers  of  the  young  people  whom  she 
loved.  I  told  you  of  two  lawyers  who  had  written  me  from 
Kansas  and  Kentucky  that  they  would  lose  their  practice  if  it 
were  known  what  they  believed.  I  was  told,  only  yesterday, 
of  a  school  superintendent,  who  creeps  about  from  day  to 
day  for  the  sake  of  the  position,  trying  to  be  friends  with 
both  sides,  concealing  the  fact  that  he  is  a  liberal  at  heart. 
He  received  a  circular  lately  from  the  clergymen  of  the  place 
where  he  lives,  asking  that  those  who  received  it  should  fill 
it  out  and  return  it.  This  would  necessarily  commit  the  one 
who  filled  it  out  to  the  old  position  or  the  new ;  and,  if  he  did 
not  return  it,  it  would  be  attended  by  suspicion.  This  man 
was  in  great  trouble  because  placed  in  such  a  dilemma,  being 
afraid  to  avow  his  opinions.  So  you  find  hundreds  and  thou- 
sands of  these  people  to-day,  who  are  afraid,  on  account  of 
some  worldly  disadvantage  that  will  attach  to  them  if  they 
avow  their  convictions.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  time,  if  the 
world  has  not  grown  too  old  for  it,  that  we  had  a  few  mar- 
tyrs, to  wake  up  the  consciences  of  this  generation  to  the 
fact  that  the  battles  of  truth  with  error  are  not  yet  all  fought 
out.  If  ever  the  time  came  when  I  could  not  live  manfully 
in  this  world,  avowing  my  convictions,  even  though  I  were 


Heresy  and  Conformity  209 

starved  out  of  this  into  another,  I  would  seek  another,  and 
see  if  there  were  anywhere  where  I  might  live  as  a  man 
should.  If  a  person  cannot  live  and  be  true,  I  question 
whether  Dr.  Johnson  was  not  right  in  what  he  said  to  a 
gentleman  one  day,  who  was  engaged  in  a  business  for 
which  the  old  doctor  had  not  much  respect.  He  urged  him 
to  leave  it;  but  the  man  replied,  "One  must  live,  you  know." 
The  old  doctor  looked  at  him,  and  said  that  he  was  not 
quite  sure  of  that.  He  did  not  admit  the  necessity  of  living 
under  those  conditions. 

Then  there  is  another  class  of  people  who  are  conforming 
from  fear  of  hurting  the  feelings  of  their  friends.  I  have 
in  mind  the  lieutenant-governor  of  one  of  our  great  States, 
who  told  a  friend  of  mine  that  he  became  a  member  of  the 
old  church  when  he  believed  in  it.  Children  had  grown  up 
there,  his  wife  and  all  his  friends  were  there,  and  he  had 
become  a  vestryman,  and  was  prominent  in  the  society ;  but, 
since  joining  there,  he  had  become  a  pronounced  liberal,  and 
he  said,  "What  can  I  do  ?"  I  know  any  number  of  persons 
who  go  to  church  nowhere,  or  to  the  old  church,  because  an 
aged  mother  would  be  hurt  or  a  father  troubled  by  the  avowed 
unbelief,  as  they  would  call  it,  of  their  child.  It  does  seem 
to  me  that  there  is  something  more  important  than  having 
the  question  raised  as  to  the  feelings  of  friends.  Do  as  many 
a  friend  of  mine  has  done, —  be  frank  and  outspoken  with 
your  liberalism,  but  with  all  be  so  sweet  and  holy  and  true 
in  it  that,  if  you  do  not  convert  your  friends,  you  may  at  least 
convert  them  to  the  conviction  that  it  is  possible  to  be  a  saint 
in  another  faith  than  theirs. 

Again,  there  is  a  class  of  people  who  stay  where  they  are 
in  the  hope  that  they  shall  be  able  to  modify  and  gradually 
change  the  climate  of  the  old  country  in  which  they  live,  and 
make  it  conform  to  the  warmth  and  the  sunshine  of  our  mod- 


2IO  Religions  Reconstruction 

era  thought.  Concerning  these  people  who  stay  in  the  old 
church  for  the  sake  of  modifying  and  leavening  it,  as  far  as 
my  observation  has  gone,  the  result  has  generally  been  that 
these  people  have  been  repressed,  so  far  as  the  grandest 
development  of  their  own  religious  life  is  concerned,  and 
that  they  have  been  injured  without  benefiting  anybody  else. 
I  never  yet  knew  of  any  old  organization  that  was  reformed 
from  the  inside, —  never.  By  the  time  a  thing  has  become 
instituted  and  organized,  it  has  gathered  round  it  so  many 
vested  interests  that  the  people  cling  to  it  for  the  sake  of 
those  interests;  and  they  are  not  going  to  surrender  them 
on  account  of  some  person  inside  who  is  discontented.  They 
say,  You  can  go  out,  if  you  are  not  contented  here ;  and  they 
say  it  logically  and  consistently.  Several  doctors  of  divinity 
urged  me  to  stay  inside,  when  I  thought  of  leaving  the  old 
church.  Of  those  men,  one  is  dead.  The  two  foremost  of 
them  have  been  turned  out  of  the  church  in  which  they  lived, 
for  heresy ;  and,  if  they  have  helped  the  old  churches  at  all, 
it  has  been  from  the  outside,  as  I  have, —  only,  instead  of 
going  out  voluntarily,  they  have  been  compelled  to  go. 

There  is  another  class  of  people  who  stay  where  they  are 
avowedly  on  account  of  the  advantages  of  their  position ;  and 
they  try  to  persuade  themselves  that  they  have  a  right  to 
stay  there.  As  a  marked  instance  of  this,  take  the  case  of 
many  a  clergyman  in  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Church 
of  Scotland.  There  are  hundreds  who  do  not  believe  the 
essentials  of  their  creeds,  and  who  still  stay  where  they  are. 
They  repeat  the  creed,  but  they  take  it  with  a  mental  reser- 
vation. They  twist  their  consciences  to  adapt  them  to  the 
institution,  or  they  attempt  to  twist  the  creed  into  meaning 
something  that  they  know  it  does  not  mean.  Rev.  Stopford 
Brooke  told  me  in  conversation  in  London  that,  at  the  time 
when  he  left  the  Church  of  England,  he  knew  there  were 


Heresy  and  Conformity  211 

hundreds  of  other  young  ministers  who  agreed  with  him 
essentially  in  thought,  who  talked  about  staying  in  and 
fighting  for  their  position  there,  but  who  had  not  the  cour- 
age to  come  out. 

As  an  illustration,  take  the  case  of  the  professors  at  An- 
dover,  which  is  up  at  present,  and  likely  to  be  up  for  some 
time,  as  it  has  gone  before  the  Supreme  Court  for  settlement. 
They  do  not  believe  the  creed.  They  know  they  do  not,  con- 
fess they  do  not;  yet  they  read  it  and  swear  to  it.  Why? 
Here  is  an  endowment ;  and  they  are  trying  to  turn  that 
endowment  from  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  established, 
and  make  it  accomplish  results  which  the  men  who  gave  the 
money  hated  with  their  whole  souls.  I  have  no  sort  of 
question  of  the  personal  honesty  of  these  men  :  I  know  and 
love  some  of  them ;  but  I  cannot  understand  their  system  of 
ethics.  I  cannot  understand  how  they  can  hold  such  a  posi- 
tion. They  do.  They  are  noble  men,  sweet  men,  men 
trying  to  accomplish  good  in  the  world ;  but  it  seems  to  me 
they  would  sweep  the  sentiment  of  America  with  them  like 
a  tide,  if  only  they  would  say,  "We  do  not  believe  it,  we 
repudiate  it,  we  will  not  stand  on  it,"  and  go  out  in  a  body. 
What  an  influence  they  might  have  for  frankness,  honesty, 
earnestness,  in  the  religious  life  of  the  century ! 

One  word  with  reference  to  certain  persons,  generally 
men.  There  are  men  and  women  both,  I  know,  who  believe 
in  these  ideas,  perhaps,  but  do  not  dare  to  teach  them  to 
their  children  ;  who  do  not  go  to  church  at  all,  or  go  to 
some  church  occasionally  to  which  they  could  not  subscribe ; 
who  allow  their  children,  or  purposely  arrange  to  have  them, 
attend  a  Sunday-school  where  things  are  taught  that  the 
parents  have  no  sympathy  with  j  who  believe  that  it  is  safe 
for  themselves  to  know  certain  things,  but  not  safe  for  the 
young  or  for  children.  What  is  safe  for  a  person  of  any 


212  Religious  Reconstruction 

age,  except  the  truth  ?  I  cannot  spend  much  time  on  these 
persons :  perhaps  they  are  not  worth  it.  I  have  no  great 
amount  of  respect  for  them. 

Then  there  are  men,  and  they  are  counted  by  the  hundred 
and  I  fear  by  the  thousand,  in  Europe  and  America,  who 
cynically  calculate  on  the  good  they  will  get  in  this  world 
by  conformity.  They  have  no  real  convictions,  nothing  that 
one  can  appeal  to.  They  go  to  church,  if  they  go  at  all, 
precisely  as  they  go  anywhere  else, —  for  the  sake  of  being 
with  their  friends,  for  the  sake  of  the  social  consideration. 
I  was  told  in  New  York,  the  other  day,  of  a  prominent  law- 
yer, who  said  frankly  that  he  did  not  believe  in  the  Episco- 
pal creed,  though  he  was  a  vestryman  and  doing  everything 
he  could  to  support  it,  as  he  would  to  support  his  club,  or 
any  other  social  institution  in  which  he  was  interested. 

I  was  told  by  a  lawyer  of  this  city  a  few  years  ago  that 
he  had  no  respect  for  the  religious  opinions  of  anybody  in 
particular,  but  he  went  to  the  most  prominent  church  and 
had  a  pew  there,  because  it  was  a  good  thing  to  be  with  his 
friends.  And  he  said,  if  Buddhism  or  Catholicism  or  any- 
thing else  should  be  the  fashion,  he  should  conform  in  the 
same  way. 

Then  there  is  a  class  of  people,  like  Bishop  Bloughram  in 
Browning's  poem,  who  cynically  choose  that  which  they  be- 
lieve will  bring  to  them  the  most  of  comfort  and  ease  on 
their  journey  through  life.  The  bishop  is  drinking  wine 
with  a  friend  after  a  sumptuous  dinner,  and  discussing  these 
great  problems  of  belief;  and  he  takes  the  ground,  which 
any  one  may  plausibly  take,  that  it  is  difficult  to  settle 
them  permanently,  and  for  his  part  he  chooses  that  which 
will  bring  him  the  most  advantage  as  he  goes  along  through 
life.  He  draws  a  comparison,  and  makes  life  a  voyage,  and 
says :  Which  will  you  choose  ?  You  can  take  a  berth,  a 


Heresy  and  Conformity  213 

cabin, —  not  very  large,  to  be  sure,  but  luxurious,  with  all 
comforts  and  everything  that  you  can  desire, —  or  you  can 
choose  a  rough  board  and  sleep  on  it.  You  cannot  have 
everything  your  own  way.  I  choose  the  cabin,  with  the  com- 
forts and  luxuries.  There  are  thousands  of  such  people. 
What  can  I  say  to  them  ?  If  they  had  a  conscience,  I  might 
have  something  to  say ;  but,  when  a  man  avowedly  asserts  a 
position  like  this,  then  there  is  no  ground  for  moral  appeal 
left  in  his  nature.  You  can  look  upon  them  only  with  con- 
tempt, and  try  to  avoid  becoming  like  them  yourselves. 

And  now  a  word  or  two  more  to  bind  up  my  theme  and 
give  it  fitting  close, —  a  word  concerning  this  matter  of 
heresy,  this  method  by  which  the  world  gets  on.  Why 
should  not  people  be  brave  to  follow  their  thought  when 
they  remember  that  it  is  this  way,  and  this  alone,  that  the 
world  grows  ever  to  more  and  more  ?  Why  should  not  men 
cherish  a  new  light  that  rays  itself  out  of  God's  heart,  when 
they  know  that  in  an  infinite  universe  like  this,  in  which  is 
a  finite  race,  growing  age  after  age,  there  must  of  necessity 
be  this  perpetual  growth  of  revelation,  ever  coming  to  some- 
thing finer  and  higher  ?  But,  if  any  one  is  afraid,  let  him 
remember  that  God  is  still  alive.  God  is  still  holding  this 
old  planet  in  his  hand,  still  marking  out  its  orbit.  He  is 
alive  this  morning,  just  as  much  alive  as  he  was  yesterday, 
as  much  as  he  was  ten  thousand  years  ago.  And  remember 
again  that  truth,  a  new  truth,  is  just  as  old  as  an  old  truth. 
If  a  thing  is  true,  it  is  eternal.  It  is  only  our  discovery  of 
it  that  makes  us  call  it  new.  It  is  God's  truth  also,  if  it  is 
truth;  for  he  is  the  source,  and  the  only  source,  of  all  truth. 
There  are  many  people  in  the  world  who  have  a  great  rever- 
ence for  age,  for  antiquity,  for  that  which  has  been  estab- 
lished for  thousands  of  years.  I  wonder  if  such  people  ever 
take  the  trouble  to  think  that  the  world  was  never  quite  so 


214  Religious  Reconstruction 

old,  quite  so  hoary-headed,  if  age  makes  wisdom,  as  it  is 
this  morning.  Go  back  ten  thousand  years,  and  you  will 
find  the  time  of  the  world's  childhood ;  and  the  thoughts  of 
that  time  must  of  necessity  be  the  child-thoughts  of  the 
world.  The  mature  thoughts  of  the  world's  manhood  are 
its  latest  thoughts.  If  you  wish  to  reverence  age,  then  rever- 
ence this  morning,  and  the  last  truth  that  any  eye  of  man 
has  seen  shining, —  a  new  star  out  of  God's  eternal  heavens. 
You  wish  to  be  safe.  So  do  I.  Who  is  safe  ?  Who  is 
morally  safe  in  this  universe  ?  Is  he  not  the  truth-seeker  ? 
For  the  truth-seeker  is  the  only  God-seeker.  No  matter 
where  you  are,  no  matter  in  what  age  of  the  world,  no  matter 
how  far  from  the  central  point  of  any  religion,  no  matter 
how  feeble  you  are,  you  are  all  God's  children ;  and,  if  there 
is  a  wish  in  your  heart  for  the  truth,  that  wish  instantly 
brings  the  Omnipotent  to  your  side.  Every  wish  for  truth 
is  a  wish  for  God.  No  man  ever  really  wished  for  God  with- 
out being  folded  in  his  arms.  The  one,  then,  who  is  seeking 
truth,  trying  to  find  it,  trying  to  live  it  the  best  he  may,  he 
is  the  one  who,  in  all  ages  and  in  all  worlds,  is  safe. 


THE  DUTY  OF  LIBERALS. 


As  SETTING  forth  the  attitude  in  which  we  stand  to  the 
past  and  in  which  liberals  stand  with  an  emphasis  peculiar 
to  themselves,  and  as  hinting  the  duty  which  we  owe  to 
humanity  in  the  light  of  what  the  past  has  done  for  us,  1 
shall  begin  by  reading  the  following  verses,  written  by  Mrs. 
Julia  C.  R.  Dorr  :  — 

"  Heir  of  all  the  ages,  I,— 
Heir  of  all  that  they  have  wrought ! 
All  their  store  of  emprise  high, 
All  their  wealth  of  precious  thought ! 

**  Every  golden  deed  of  theirs 
Sheds  its  lustre  on  my  way ; 
All  their  labors,  all  their  prayers, 
Sanctify  this  present  day. 

"  Heir  of  all  that  they  have  earned 
By  their  passion  and  their  tears, 
Heir  of  all  that  they  have  learned 
Through  the  weary,  toiling  years. 

«  Heir  of  all  the  faith  sublime 
On  whose  wings  they  soared  to  heaven, 
Heir  of  every  hope  that  time 
To  earth's  fainting  sons  hath  given,— 

"  Aspirations  pure  and  high, 
Strength  to  do  and  to  endure,— 
Heir  of  all  the  ages,  I, — 
Lo !  I  am  no  longer  poor." 


216  Religions  Reconstruction 

As  we  contemplate  the  relation  in  which  we  stand  to  our 
own  time  and  the  question  of  the  duty  which  we  owe  to  our 
fellow-men  and  to  the  future,  we  need  to  take  this  point  of 
view  regarding  what  has  come  down  to  us  by  inheritance 
from  all  the  past.  We  do  not  often  enough  think  of  our 
duty  in  the  light  of  an  obligation  like  this.  Whatever  we 
possess  to-day  of  any  value  has  come  to  us  as  an  outright 
gift  from  this  same  toiling,  struggling,  aspiring  humanity  to 
which  we  belong ;  has  come  to  us  from  God,  the  source  of 
all,  through  this  humanity  as  medium.  If  we  think  we  have 
achieved  something  by  means  of  our  own  brain  or  hands, 
the  brain  and  the  hands  are  gifts  from  God  through  this 
channel.  All  the  inventions,  all  the  discoveries,  all  the  sci- 
entific achievement,  all  the  search  for  beauty,  all  political 
progress,  all  industrial  attainment,  all  that  make  up  the 
civilization  of  which  we  are  a  part,  have  come  to  us  from  God 
through  our  fellow-men.  And,  of  liberals,  it  can  be  said  that 
they  alone  have  entered  upon  the  full,  complete  inheritance 
of  all  that  the  world  has  wrought.  The  inheritance  indeed 
waits  for  others.  It  is  as  open  and  free  to  them  as  to  us, 
but  the  grandest  part  of  it  all  they  have  not  yet  enough 
faith  in  God  and  in  themselves  to  open  their  brains,  their 
hearts,  and  their  hands  to  accept ;  for,  certainly,  the  most 
magnificent  treasure  of  the  past  that  has  been  handed  down 
to  us  is  so  much  of  truth  concerning  God,  concerning  man, 
concerning  destiny,  as  makes  up  the  achievement  of  the 
world  until  this  present  hour.  And  the  liberal  church,  I  say, 
is  the  only  one  that  has  yet  dared,  in  high,  grand  trust  in 
God,  to  take  this  as  its  own.  We  have  not  only  the  inheri- 
tance of  political  achievement,  of  industrial  achievement,  of 
artistic  and  scientific  development,  but  we  have  entered 
upon  the  inheritance  of  the  world's  religious  achievement. 
Not  only  one  Bible,  but  all  bibles,  are  ours ;  not  only 


The  Duty  of  Liberals  217 

one  Saviour,  but  all  saviors ;  not  only  one  martyr,  but 
all  martyrs ;  not  only  one  leader,  but  all  leaders.  All 
those  who  have  done  anything  to  help  the  world  to  find 
the  right  path,  all  that  have  dared  to  lead  on  the  world  to 
something  newer  and  higher,  all  who  have  wrought  to  make 
humanity  better, —  these  are  ours  in  full  fellowship ;  and  we 
take  to-day  the  result  of  all  that  they  have  gained.  If  that 
grand  old  saying,  Noblesse  oblige,  be  true  of  any  one,  it  is 
certainly  true  of  us ;  for  the  duty  that  devolves  upon  us 
corresponds  with  the  achievement  and  the  attainment  of  the 
present  hour.  Our  duty  is  as  great  as  our  opportunity,  as 
great  as  the  gifts  which  we  have  received;  and  we  have  no 
right  simply  to  enter  upon  this  inheritance  as  parasites  or  as 
spendthrifts,  and  take  it  and  use  it  without  seeing  to  it  that 
the  world  is  left  as  rich,  at  least,  as  it  was  when  we  were 
born.  Those  who  are  truly  noble  and  who  truly  appreciate 
what  it  means  to  be  a  son  or  daughter  of  God  and  a  member 
of  such  a  race  as  ours  will  not  only  see  that  they  must 
leave  the  world  as  rich,  but  that  they  must  do  something  to 
make  it  even  a  little  richer  than  they  found  it.  The  duty, 
then,  of  liberals,  in  the  light  of  their  inheritance  from  the 
past,  the  duty  of  the  faith  which  they  have  wrought  out,  their 
duty  through  the  ministry  of  that  faith  to  their  fellow-men,  is 
the  plain  and  simple  thing  which  I  wish  to  urge  upon  your 
thought  and  your  consciences  to-day. 

While  it  is  true  that  liberals  have  received  a  larger  inheri- 
tance, and  therefore  have  inherited  a  larger  obligation,  than 
anybody  else  in  all  the  world,  it  is  true  at  the  same  time, 
and  for  a  satisfactory  reason,  that  the  great  majority  of 
liberals  perhaps  feel  less  obligation  than  those  who  still 
adhere  to  the  old  faith.  This  is  not  a  strange  condition  of 
affairs.  It  is  perfectly  natural  and  necessary,  springing  out 
of  the  process  of  transition  through  which  we  are  passing. 


218  Religious  Reconstruction 

For,  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  tell  you  more  than  once,  and 
I  cannot  tell  it  to  you  too  often,  we  are  passing  through  the 
mightiest  and  farthest-reaching  revolution  of  thought  that 
the  world  has  ever  known.  But  we  have  lost  the  old  mo- 
tives. So  long  as  men  believed  that  every  one  they  met  was 
living  a  brief  probation  on  this  planet,  the  end  of  which  was 
to  be  eternal  bliss  in  heaven  or  eternal  misery  in  hell,  and 
which  depended  upon  whether  they  accepted  certain  relig- 
ious ideas  and  conformed  to  certain  methods  of  worship 
or  not,  no  man  who  was  humane  could  help  feeling  an  inces- 
sant and  continuous  sense  of  obligation, —  an  obligation  that 
superseded  every  other  thought.  But  we  have  changed  our 
conception  of  all  that.  We  no  longer  believe  that  this  life 
is  a  probation  that  fixes  the  eternal  destiny  of  the  soul. 
Hell  is  looked  upon  by  most  intelligent  people  as  a  barbaric 
myth.  Heaven  has  become,  in  the  minds  of  many,  nothing 
more  than  an  interrogation  point.  Thousands  of  liberals 
question  whether  there  is  any  satisfactory  evidence  of  any 
future  life  at  all.  The  motive,  therefore,  that  used  to  be 
so  powerful  over  the  thoughts  and  minds  and  hearts  of 
men  has  become  weakened.  We  are  out  of  the  old,  and  yet 
not  quite  into  the  new.  And  yet  I  believe  with  my  whole 
soul  that,  if  intelligent  men  did  come  to  comprehend  the 
situation,  and  to  understand  the  relation  in  which  we  stand 
to  God  and  to  our  fellow-men,  to  comprehend  the  relation 
in  which  this  life  stands  to  another  life  which  is  only  a  con- 
tinuation of  this, —  I  believe,  I  repeat,  that  we  should  find 
a  mightier  set  of  motives  than  any  of  which  the  past  ever 
dreamed. 

The  first  thing,  then,  that  liberals  need  is  a  set  of  convic- 
tions. They  are  confused ;  they  are  disturbed,  the  universe 
is  so  large.  The  flood  of  light  that  has  come  has  blinded 
people.  They  do  not  yet  see  their  way  clearly ;  and  so  they 


The  Duty  of  Liberals  219 

are  drifting.  Shall  I  be  very  far  from  right  if  I  say  that  the 
majority  of  liberal  men  and  women  cannot  be  said  to  be 
the  possessors  of  convictions  ?  *  They  have  prejudices,  they 
have  inherited  notions,  they  have  ideas,  they  have  feelings, 
they  have  ambitions.  But  what  is  a  conviction  ?  A  convic- 
tion is  that  of  which  a  person  has  become  convinced.  But 
that  implies  thought,  that  implies  a  looking  over  the  condi- 
tion of  the  world's  affairs.  It  implies  something  of  a  com- 
prehension of  the  past,  the  present,  and  of  the  probable 
future.  And  yet  it  is  without  question  a  fact  that  the  men 
who  have  convictions  are  the  only  ones  who  count.  You  all 
count  when  the  census  is  being  taken ;  but  how  many  of  you 
count  as  a  positive  force  in  the  religious  life  of  your  time,  of 
your  city  ?  How  many  stand  for  something,  so  that,  if  you 
were  taken  away,  that  which  you  supported  would  fall? 
How  many  of  you  mean  anything  more  than  a  cipher,  which 
coming  after  a  figure  may  add  a  little  to  the  force  of  it  on 
account  of  the  number,  but  which  is  of  no  value  as  it  stands 
alone  ?  I  would  rather  be  a  voice,  though  a  feeble  one,  than 
to  be  the  loudest  kind  of  an  echo.  How  many  voices  are 
there  among  the  liberals  of  the  present  time  ? 

If  you  were  to  ask  many  men  why  they  are  in  any  partic- 
ular church,  the  answer  would  be  the  same  you  would  be 
obliged  to  give  concerning  a  bit  of  drift-wood,  if  asked  why 
it  happened  to  be  in  a  particular  eddy, —  it  was  floated  by 
the  current  to  its  present  position ;  it  had  nothing  to  do 
with  getting  there.  Men  and  women  are  governed  by  ques- 
tions of  fashion,  of  convenience,  of  nearness  to  a  particular 
church  building,  as  to  where  their  friends  attend,  if  they  go 
to  church  at  all.  Men  and  women  easily  marry  out  of  one 
church  into  another,  having  no  regard  to  the  question  of 

*  Though  this  be  true  of  liberals,  it  is  more  true  of  others.  For  it  takes  some  con- 
viction to  make  a  man  a  liberal. 


22O  Religious  Reconstruction 

belief  involved  in  the  process.  They  are  governed  by  all 
sorts  of  influences  except  that  of  minds  made  up  in  the  light 
of  independent,  free  thought.  And  yet,  as  I  said,  it  is  only 
the  men  and  women  who  have  convictions  and  who  stand 
for  them  who  make  up  the  motive  force  of  the  world. 

And  now  I  wish  to  outline  a  few  convictions  of  which  you 
ought  to  possess  yourselves,  as  free,  intelligent  men  and 
women. 

In  the  first  place,  you  need  to  become  convinced  in  your 
own  minds  as  to  which  way  this  old  world  is  moving  under 
the  impulse  of  the  divine  Power  that  is  guiding  it.  Which 
way  is  God  leading  the  world?  You  need  to  remember 
that  God  does  not  lead  this  world,  considered  as  a  moral 
and  religious  institution,  except  through  the  agency  of  men 
and  women.  As  Luther  said,  "God  has  need  of  strong 
men."  God  works  through  the  brain,  the  heart,  the  con- 
science, the  enthusiasm,  of  men  and  women.  Which  way, 
then,  in  your  opinion,  is  the  world  moving  ?  Is  it  moving  in 
the  direction  where  we  stand,  towards  which  we  are  looking  ? 
People  used  to  hold  a  conception  of  God  as  outside  all  this 
system  of  things,  as  working  on  it  miraculously  and  magi- 
cally ;  of  salvation  as  a  miraculous,  magical  process.  The 
world  is  moving  away  from  that  thought  and  towards  a  belief 
in  God  as  immanent  in  his  works, —  the  life,  the  soul,  of  the 
world, —  and  towards  salvation,  not  as  a  magical  process  or 
change  in  the  heart,  the  soul,  by  which  one  is  fitted  to  live 
in  one  particular  place  or  is  sent  to  some  other  particular 
place  in  the  future  world,  but  as  being  inherent  in  character. 
Man  is  a  child  of  God ;  and  he  serves  God  not  primarily  by 
rites  and  services  and  rituals  and  prayers,  but  by  right  think- 
ing and  by  right  feeling,  by  right  action,  by  becoming  like 
him,  in  short.  This  is  salvation. 

Now,  do  you  believe  that  the  world  is  moving  in  this  direc- 


»r  *** 

UNIVERSITY 


TJie  Duty  of  Liberals  221 

tion  ?  If  so,  what  ?  The  result  that  should  follow  may  be 
forcibly  illustrated  by  an  anecdote  told  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 
Soon  after  the  opening  of  the  war,  some  one  came  in,  and 
said  to  him  :  "  Mr.  President,  what  makes  you  feel  sure  that 
God  is  on  our  side  in  this  conflict  ?  People  at  the  South  are 
religious.  They  believe  that  they  are  right.  They  are  pray- 
ing just  as  much  as  we  are.  How  do  you  know  that  God  is 
not  on  their  side  ?  "  And  the  reply  came,  containing  a  prin- 
ciple that  we  ought  never  to  forget.  "  It  has  never  occurred 
to  me,"  said  Mr.  Lincoln,  "  to  ask  whether  God  is  on  our 
side.  The  one  thing  I  am  anxious  about  is  to  find  out 
where  God  is,  and  to  get  on  his  side." 

Which  way,  then,  is  the  world  moving  ?  If  you  have  con- 
vinced yourself  in  your  own  minds  which  way,  then  it  is 
your  business  to  cast  your  total  influence  with  this  drift  of 
the  divine  energy  through  the  ages, —  not  to  fight  against 
God,  not  to  be  an  eddy  in  the  great  stream  of  progress,  not 
to  be  a  reactionary  force,  but  to  find  out  where  God  is,  and 
to  get  on  his  side  actively,  earnestly,  helpfully,  and  not 
simply  drift  on  the  great  current  of  affairs. 

There  is  another  conviction  by  which  you  need  to  be  pos- 
sessed; and  that  is  concerning  the  importance  of  correct 
thinking,  correct  theory  in  religion.  This  world  is  domi- 
nated by  thought  ultimately.  If  you  can  only  find  out  what 
people  are  doing,  you  need  not  ask  them  whether  they  have 
a  theory  or  what  that  theory  is.  They  reveal  the  real  the- 
ory of  their  lives  by  their  actions.  It  is  the  thought  of  some- 
body as  to  what  ought  to  be  done  and  how  it  ought  to  be 
done  that  determines  all  conduct,  whether  it  be  in  religion 
or  business  or  science  or  art,  or  wherever  it  may  be.  Since 
theory  is  of  this  supreme  importance  in  religious  thinking,  it 
follows  that  false  theory,  wrong  thinking  in  religion,  is  a 
source  of  waste  and  hindrance  beyond  any  power  of  human 


222  Religious  Reconstruction 

calculation.  Just  think  of  it  for  a  moment !  Suppose  all 
the  world  could  bend  its  energies,  give  its  thought,  its  time, 
its  money,  its  strength,  to  following  after  truth  along  intelli- 
gible lines  towards  intelligible  ends,  and  do  it  for  a  year, 
you  would  hardly  know  the  world  by  the  time  the  twelve 
months  had  gone  by.  The  great  majority  of  men  and  women 
to-day  are  under  the  power  of  false  theories  concerning  God, 
concerning  themselves,  concerning  duty,  concerning  destiny, 
—  false  theories  as  to  what  needs  to  be  done  and  false  the- 
ories as  to  how  to  do  it.  And  the  world  swings  and  staggers 
along  in  its  orbit  instead  of  sweeping  under  the  impulse 
of  the  combined  purpose  of  all  its  inhabitants  along  its  shin- 
ing pathway,  as  it  might.  The  waste,  the  burden  of  false 
theories  in  religion,  are  simply  incalculable.  Take  this  con- 
viction into  your  souls  then,  and  do  what  you  can  to  stop 
this  waste,  do  what  you  can  to  lighten  this  burden,  do  what 
you  can  to  clear  the  way  and  to  help  on  the  speedier  prog- 
ress of  man  towards  a  deliverance  from  those  evils  under 
which  he  has  for  ages  staggered  and  groaned ;  for  it  is  not 
simply  in  religion  that  these  are  felt.  Did  you  ever  stop  to 
think  how  all-inclusive  and  comprehensive  is  the  thing  which 
we  call  religion  ?  It  is  man's  theory  of  life.  It  includes  it, 
surrounds  it,  beneath  and  on  all  sides,  and  is  above  every" 
other  human  consideration.  First  or  last,  a  man's  religious 
ideas  determine  what  his  political  life  shall  be.  They  domi- 
nate his  business  and  his  method  of  conducting  it.  They 
dominate  the  world's  education.  They  touch  and  control 
even  the  matter  of  the  world's  health, —  as  to  the  care  of  the 
body,  as  to  how  diseases  are  caused  and  how  they  are  to  be 
cured.  There  is  no  single  practical  department  of  human 
life  that  is  not  touched,  shaped,  made,  or  marred  by  the 
religious  conceptions  which  control  the  actions  of  men. 
Then  there  is  one  other  conviction  of  which  you  need  to 


TJic  Duty  of  Liberals  223 

be  possessed.  We  have  given  up  our  belief  in  a  literal,  fiery 
hell.  Because  we  believe  that  we  do  not  need  to  be  saved 
from  any  such  place,  the  first  impulse  is  to  feel  that  religion 
has  nothing  more  to  do  or  say  to  the  individual,  that  is  of 
any  practical  importance.  We  need  to  learn,  however,  that 
the  need  of  right  thought,  right  feeling,  right  action,  of  a 
correct  religious  life,  both  in  theory  and  practice,  is  just  as 
important  to  the  individual  under  the  new  theory  as  it  was 
under  the  old ;  that  there  is  real  salvation  needed,  real  de- 
liverance, as  much  as  there  was  under  the  old  theory.  We 
need  to  become  convinced  of  this  concerning  ourselves  and 
concerning  our  neighbors,  or  we  shall  wake  up  by  and  by  to 
learn  that  we  have  met  with  a  fearful  loss  if  we  do  not  carry 
this  conviction  out  in  our  practical  living.  Remember  that 
every  word  you  speak,  every  thought  you  think,  every  deed 
you  do,  your  waking  and  your  sleeping  life,  are  making  you 
what  you  are  for  bad  or  for  good.  They  are  shaping  your 
eternal  destiny  for  bad  or  for  good.  Because  there  is  no 
hell,  it  does  not  mean  that  everything  beyond  the  border  is 
heaven,  and  that  when  people  get  there  they  are  going  to 
be  all  alike,  because  they  are  not  doomed  to  a  place  of  tort- 
ure. Look  at  the  common  sense  of  the  matter.  Does  it 
make  any  difference  whether  your  boy  goes  to  school  or  not ; 
whether,  if  he  goes,  he  learns  anything  either  with  his  head 
or  hands,  whether  he  learns  what  life  means,  whether  he  is 
self-developed,  whether  he  is  trained  and  taught  so  that  he 
can  control  his  surroundings  and  master  the  conditions  of 
life  into  which  he  is  to  be  finally  cast  when  he  reaches  years 
of  maturity  ?  Suppose  he  goes  through  Harvard.  Does  it 
make  any  difference  whether  he  learns  anything,  whether  he 
develops  himself  ?  It  will  make  all  the  difference  between 
his  being  a  man  or  not  when  he  is  through,  all  the  differ- 
ence between  his  being  master  of  his  circumstances  or  their 


224  Religious  Reconstruction 

victim.  It  will  make  all  the  difference  between  a  life  of 
happy  success  and  one  of  miserable  failure.  And  so,  as  you 
go  out  into  the  future,  will  it  make  any  difference  whether 
you  go  trained,  educated,  with  those  faculties  developed  that 
will  be  called  into  play  over  there,  whether  you  go  fitted  for 
that  life  or  whether  you  do  not  ?  And  what  is  fitness  ?  It 
is  knowledge  of  God,  knowledge  of  yourself,  right  relations 
to  God,  right  relations  to  your  fellow-men,  true  thought, 
right  feeling,  noble  action.  These  are  what  will  make  you 
for  all  ages ;  and,  if  you  neglect  these  things,  you  may  find 
yourself,  and  I  believe  you  will,  in  a  condition  that  will 
be  all  the  hell  that  you  will  find  yourself  willing  to  bear. 
There  is  just  as  much  need  of  right  thought,  right  feeling, 
right  action, —  that  is,  a  true  religious  life, — under  modern  the- 
ories, as  there  was  under  the  old.  Nay,  more  ;  for,  under 
those  theories,  even  at  the  eleventh  hour,  by  some  magical 
process,  in  an  instant  you  might  be  transformed  and  fitted 
for  heaven.  But  now  not  even  God  himself  can  fit  you 
instantly  and  magically  for  any  heaven ;  and  you  will  find 
only  so  much  heaven  as  you  have  fitted  yourself  for  by  this 
training  and  development,  through  true  thought  and  worthy 
action. 

These,  then,  are  the  convictions  of  which  you  ought  tcr 
become  possessed.  And  now  I  wish  to  draw  from  these 
certain  practical  suggestions  as  to  what  you  ought  to  do. 

First,  there  ought  to  be  utter,  active,  positive  loyalty  to 
your  faith.  Do  you  believe  that  you  are  right  ?  If  you  do 
not,  then  you  have  no  business  to  be  here.  You  have  no 
right  to  hold  certain  ideas  because  you  have  happened  to 
come  into  their  possession.  It  is  your  most  sacred  duty 
before  God,  for  the  sake  of  your  fellow-men,  to  be  sure  that 
you  are  right,  to  do  all  that  you  can  to  find  out  that  you  are 
right ;  and  you  have  no  right  to  hold  any  ideas  except  those 


TJic  Duty  of  Liberals  225 

you  have  become  possessed  of  after  using  the  best  ability 
you  have  to  make  sure  that  they  are  correct.  The  religious 
forces  of  this  world  are  divided  enough  already.  If  there  is 
no  call  for  a  Unitarian  church,  then  it  is  a  crime  that  it 
exists.  There  is  no  excuse  for  any  further  schism  in  Chris- 
tendom, except  the  excuse  of  a  higher  and  imperative  faith. 
If  we  have  heard  some  word  of  God  that  others  have  not, 
then  we  must  obey  that,  on  peril  of  our  souls.  If  we  do  not, 
if  we  are  simply  following  our  own  whims  and  fancies,  then 
we  are  neither  loyal  to  God  nor  to  our  fellow-men.  It  is 
our  highest  duty,  then,  to  make  sure  that  we  are  in  posses- 
sion of  the  highest  attainable  truth  where  we  are,  to  make 
sure  of  it  as  a  personal  conviction  of  our  own  souls,  to  make 
sure  that  we  are  not  wrong,  to  make  sure  that  the  truth  is 
somewhere, —  that  is,  the  most  truth  that  we  can  practically 
attain  at  the  present  time  —  and  go  with  that  truth  wherever 
it  leads.  This  is  your  duty  as  a  child  of  God  and  as  a 
brother  of  your  fellow-men.  If  you  are  sure,  if  you  are 
convinced  that  you  are  following  God's  leadership,  then  it 
is  your  highest  duty  to  be  utterly  and  positively  and  actively 
loyal  to  this  faith. 

And  here  I  wish  that  I  could  address  every  liberal  in 
Europe  and  America  on  this  point.  It  seems  to  me  that  we 
are  all  afloat  as  to  what  liberalism  means  in  this  matter  of 
loyalty.  Why  are  we  tolerant  of  other  faiths  ?  Why  do  we 
demand  that  they  be  tolerant  of  us  ?  Not  because  men 
have  a  right  to  hold  wrong  opinions,  not  because  opinions 
are  of  no  importance.  Toleration  is  not  indifference.  Tol- 
eration is  simply  the  result  of  the  world's  experience,  coming 
to  the  conclusion  that  even  false  opinions  are  not  so  disas- 
trous as  the  tyranny  that  assumes  to  compel  other  people  by 
force  to  accept  its  opinions.  But  we,  as  liberals,  are  not 
loyal  to  God  nor  to  our  fellow-men  when  we  give  as  freely  to 


226  Religious  Reconstruction 

support  some  other  faith  as  we  do  to  support  our  own, — 
when  we  support  some  other  church,  some  school,  that  is 
teaching  precisely  the  opposite  doctrines  to  those  which  we 
believe.  Mark  carefully  what  I  mean.  We  have  no  right  to 
be  illiberal  towards  persons,  no  right  to  be  in  opposition 
towards  persons  ;  but,  for  the  sake  of  persons,  we  ought  to 
be  illiberal  and  at  enmity  forever  with  all  untruth.  Would 
you  support  a  school  which  taught  that  two  and  two  make 
five  ?  Would  you  think  you  were  doing  humanity  a  service 
by  giving  money  to  pay  its  teachers  ?  Would  you  support  a 
school  that  taught  false  geography,  false  chemistry  ?  You 
would  not  consider  it  liberal  or  generous  or  kindly.  You 
would  say,  I  am  doing  injury  to  people  to  perpetuate  systems 
of  false  teaching  that  lead  the  children  astray.  If,  then,  you 
believe  that  you  are  right  in  the  religious  opinions  you  hold, 
you  should  not  support  opinions  that  are  contradictory  to 
them ;  for  the  welfare  of  the  world  turns  upon  right  thinking 
about  God  and  man.  Your  first  great  duty,  then,  is  to  be 
loyal  to  your  faith. 

We  have  seen  that  religion  is  the  highest,  the  most  impor- 
tant, of  all  human  interests.  Any  great  interest  that  men 
and  women  share  in  common  tends  to  organize  itself  so  that 
it  may  become  a  more  efficient  agent  for  its  own  propagation 
and  the  uplifting  of  men.  So,  when  religion  is  organized,  it 
becomes  a  church,  no  matter  whether  it  goes  by  that  name 
or  not.  Any  organization  of  religious  people  for  attempting 
to  propagate  their  ideas  and  for  benefiting  and  helping  on 
mankind  is,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  church ;  and  the 
church,  in  this  sense,  is  the  grandest  human  organization 
which  is  conceivable.  There  is  nothing  so  high,  so  impor- 
tant, so  far-reaching,  with  such  majestic  claims  on  the  rever- 
ence and  services  of  men  as  the  true  church ;  for  a  church 
helps  men  and  women  to  live.  Other  things  are  all  subordi- 


77/6-  Duty  of  Liberals  227 

nate,  play  a  smaller  part.  This  is  the  one  supreme  interest 
of  man, —  how  to  live  and  develop  properly  the  true  ideal  of 
manhood  and  womanhood.  Since  this  is  the  true  theory  of 
the  church,  I  hold  it  to  be  the  unquestioned  duty  of  every 
man  to  attach  himself  to  some  such  organization,  to  become 
a  part  of  this  positive,  active  force  which  is  attempting  to 
lift  and  lead  mankind.  And  remember  that  this  is  the  lay- 
man's duty  as  much  as  the  minister's,  if  not  a  little  more. 
The  minister  is  merely  the  servant  of  the  church,  appointed 
for  some  special  talent  which  he  may  be  supposed  to  possess 
to  do  a  certain  kind  of  work.  But  it  is  as  much  the  duty  of 
any  other  man  or  woman  in  Boston  to  help  on  the  deliver- 
ance of  this  city  from  the  evils  that  burden  it  as  it  is  my 
duty.  It  is  just  as  much  your  duty  as  mine  to  be  true  to 
God,  to  your  highest  ideals,  and  to  do  what  you  can  to  help 
your  fellow-men.  People,  then,  who  hold  these  faiths  in  com- 
mon ought  to  organize  themselves  into  churches,  no  matter 
whether  they  have  a  minister  or  not.  They  ought  to  attend 
the  meetings  of  this  organization,  no  matter  whether  they 
have  any  minister  or  not  or  whether  the  minister  be  a  brill- 
iant or  a  stupid  one.  They  ought  to  attend,  not  because 
they  are  interested  in  the  minister,  not  because  he  gives 
them  an  address  that  stirs  them,  that  rouses  their  thought, 
not  because  they  love  to  hear  him  speak.  They  ought  to 
attend  for  their  own  good  and  for  the  supreme  human 
interests  involved,  because  they  feel  the  call  to  attend  to 
great  duties  that  reach  down  from  heaven  and  lay  their 
hands  of  consecration  upon  the  head  of  every  man  and 
woman  and  child.  Organize,  then,  and  help  to  carry  on  this 
work  without  any  regard  to  ministers, —  with  or  without  a 
minister.  You  are,  of  course,  free  to  get  such  a  minister  as 
you  want,  if  you  can, —  the  best  one  you  can;  but  the  min- 
ister is  no  necessary,  no  essential  part  of  the  existence  and 


228  Religious  Reconstruction 

work  of  the  church.  It  is  higher  than  the  office  of  minister; 
and  it  reaches  deeper  than  the  position  which  he  is  supposed 
to  occupy. 

Then  the  belief  about  the  money  relations  in  which  men 
stand  to  the  church  ought  to  be  thoroughly  revised.  The 
great  majority  of  men  look  upon  the  church  as  a  sort  of 
beggar,  that  comes  with  pious  call  upon  bended  knees  and 
asks  for  alms ;  and  they  give  as  they  would  to  a  beggar, 
simply  to  get  rid  of  a  personal  request.  But  what  is  the 
real  meaning  and  the  real  work  of  the  church  and  its  call 
for  money  ?  If  the  church  is  doing  the  work  that  it  ought 
to  accomplish,  it  is  doing  the  noblest  service  possible  for 
the  welfare  of  mankind.  And  you,  whether  you  are  in  the 
church  or  not,  owe  just  as  much  to  this  organization  as  does 
the  church  member.  You  have  received  your  money,  brains, 
skill,  power  of  thought  which  enabled  you  to  win  it,  as  a  gift 
from  humanity ;  and  humanity,  through  the  medium  of  the 
church,  if  that  church  be  true  and  living  out  a  lofty  ideal,  is 
simply  asking  for  its  own.  You  ought,  then,  to  contribute 
money  systematically,  liberally,  year  by  year, —  not  according 
to  the  necessity  that  is  laid  upon  you,  but  according  to  your 
liberal  ability.  Contribute  money,  and  then  follow  it,  watch 
it,  see  that  it  accomplishes  the  work  which  it  ought  to  accom- 
plish. It  is  just  as  much  your  business  to  see  where  the 
money  goes  as  it  is  the  minister's.  It  ought  to  go  to  the 
lifting  of  the  world.  If  it  does  not,  the  church  that  is  using 
it  is  wasting  it.  If  it  does  this,  you  ought  freely,  generously, 
continuously,  and  liberally  to  carry  on  such  work,  wherever 
you  are. 

Again,  take  the  work  of  the  Sunday-school,  which  in  most 
of  our  liberal  churches  is  begging  for  teachers, —  for  some- 
body to  lend  it  a  little  aid,  to  make  it  more  practical ;  and  yet, 
on  this  theory  of  the  church  and  the  true  work  of  the  church, 


The  Duty  of  Liberals  229 

there  is  no  grander  thing,  no  nobler  service  on  earth  than 
that  in  which  we  might  engage  in  a  true,  enlightened,  liberal, 
broad,  progressive  school  for  the  teaching  of  religion  to  the 
children.  It  is  magnificent  when  a  man  like  Michel  Angelo 
can  shape  marble  into  forms  of  enduring  beauty.  But  it  is 
a  grander  thing,  it  seems  to  me,  to  take  the  plastic  brain, 
heart,  and  soul  of  a  child,  and  shape  them  into  the  likeness 
of  the  living  God,  into  a  beauty  that  shall  grow  more  beau- 
tiful while  the  ages  last. 

Instead,  then,  of  thinking  you  are  stooping,  however  grand 
a  man  you  may  be,  however  fine  your  brain  or  your  educa- 
tion, however  high  your  social  or  political  position, —  instead 
of  thinking  you  are  stooping,  demeaning  yourself,  making  a 
little  concession,  by  going  into  the  Sunday-school,  you  ought 
to  feel  that  you  are  climbing  up  into  the  heights  of  God  and 
being  permitted  by  him  to  help  to  accomplish  his  noblest 
work.  That  is  what  you  are  doing,  if  you  are  accomplishing 
it  in  a  true  and  noble  way.  There  ought  to  be,  then,  if 
people  appreciate  the  privilege  and  the  grandeur  of  the 
work,  competition  as  to  who  shall  serve  God  and  man  in 
these  noble  ways. 

The  duty,  then,  of  the  liberal  in  the  light  of  the  past,  of 
all  that  he  has  received  as  a  gift  of  the  ages  that  have  gone, 
as  he  contemplates  the  present  condition  and  looks  out 
towards  the  possible  destiny  of  his  race,  in  this  world  and 
beyond  it, —  his  duty  is  to  become  possessed  of  these  great 
dominant  convictions,  and  then  lift  his  life  to  their  level. 

And  what  is  the  outcome  ?  Making  the  darkness  of  the 
world  a  little  lighter  for  those  who  do  not  see  the  way ; 
bringing  something  of  cheer  and  hope  into  hearts  and  homes 
that  are  desolate  and  discouraged ;  making  the  paths  of  life 
a  little  smoother  for  feet  that  are  weak  and  that  easily  stum- 
ble ;  lifting  up  those  that  have  fallen,  trailing  their  garments 


230  Religious  Reconstruction 

in  the  dust ;  lifting  off  the  burdens  of  the  world's  ignorance 
and  blunders,  and  the  results  of  those  blunders,  which  are 
daily  committed  because  of  this  ignorance ;  lifting  off  the 
crushing  weight  of  disease;  lifting  off  the  more  appalling 
weight  of  crime ;  helping  to  solve  the  problems  of  poverty 
and  the  industrial  problems  of  the  world ;  helping,  in  other 
words,  to  show  the  world  the  way  to  live, —  to  live  in  the 
light  of  God  and  in  the  hope  of  an  ever-lifting,  ever-widening 
future. 


Tlie  Loss  and  Gain  of  Religious  Reconstruction. 


ANY  change  involves  the  idea  of  giving  up  some  things  and 
taking  others  in  their  stead;  and,  if  this  change  is  gone 
through  with  voluntarily,  it  of  course  carries  with  it  the 
thought  that  the  person  who  makes  it  is  conscious  of  the  fact 
that  the  gain  is  to  be  greater  than  the  loss,  or  else  he  would 
not  choose  to  take  the  step.  If  one  is  compelled  to  such  a 
change,  even  then  it  becomes  a  matter  of  interest  to  him  to 
look  over  his  condition,  and  see  whether  it  be  loss  or  gain, 
and  how  great  is  either  the  one  or  the  other. 

To  a  person  who  has  been  accustomed  to  think  of  any 
special  form  of  religion  as  identical  with  religion  itself,  as 
having  been  infallibly  revealed  to  men  as  perfect  and  final, 
the  surrender  of  this  particular  form  of  the  religious  life 
means  nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  giving  up  of  religion 
itself.  He  feels  that  he  who  makes  such  a  surrender  has 
lost  everything  and  gained  nothing,  that  he  has  gone  out 
into  the  world  without  God  and  without  hope.  I  well  re- 
member that,  when  I  faced  the  possibility  of  this  religious 
reconstruction  in  my  own  case,  it  did  seem  to  me  as  though 
all  the  great  things  of  the  religious  life,  at  least,  were  in 
danger;  and  I  shrank  from  facing  the  necessity  which  it 
seemed  to  me  truth  might  lay  upon  me.  And  I  know  that 
my  friends,  when  the  time  came  that  I  did  change,  regarded 
me  as  having  surrendered  everything  that  was  valuable  in 


232  Religious  Reconstruction 

the  religious  life,  as  having  gone  out  into  a  world  of  uncer- 
tainty and  of  danger. 

Now,  as  we  are,  for  good  or  for  ill,  in  the  midst  of  a 
change  like  this,  which  is  inevitable,  which  is  coming  to 
every  man  who  freely  and  fearlessly  thinks,  we  are  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  fact  that  there  are  two  classes  of  people 
who,  if  I  am  correct  in  my  estimate  of  their  position,  need 
special  guidance,  special  help.  There  are  large  numbers  of 
liberals  who  have  taken  their  friends  at  their  word,  when 
they  have  said  they  were  giving  up  religion  in  the  act  of 
giving  up  the  old  faith.  Many  of  them  have  come  to  feel, 
as  I  know  from  personal  knowledge  of  their  condition,  that 
they  have  practically  given  up  the  religious  life.  Perhaps 
they  do  not  regret  it.  They  may  say  that  they  are  liv- 
ing now  by  the  light  of  reason,  according  to  the  scientific 
method  of  dealing  with  the  facts  of  this  world;  that  the 
universe  has  become  secularized;  and  that  religion  has  no 
place  in  it,  and  therefore  no  farther  office  to  fill  in  their 
development.  I  believe  that  such  people  as  this  are  mis- 
reading the  facts  of  the  world,  are  misreading  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  change  through  which  the  world  is  now  pass- 
ing. I  do  not  believe  that  the  world  is  to  become  secular, 
that  religion  is  to  be  outgrown  and  left  behind.  We  have 
the  light  of  reason  and  the  scientific  method  for  the  use  of 
that  reason  as  our  ultimate  court  of  appeal ;  but  we  are  to 
find,  I  believe,  that  reason  and  the  scientific  method  are  sat- 
urated with  God,  that  they  are  only  the  manifestation  of 
God's  life,  God's  thought,  God's  way  of  leading  his  children. 
And  I  believe  that  a  grander  religion  than  the  world  has 
ever  seen  is  to  take  the  place  of  that  which  is  visibly  pass- 
ing away.  It  is  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  ;  but  it  is  a 
heaven,  and  it  is  earth  still.  It  is  a  new  religion ;  but  it  is 
a.  religion  grander,  more  glorious,  than  any  that  has  been  lost 


T/ie  Loss  and  Gain  233 

to  make  way  for  its  coming.  I  believe,  then,  that  these  lib- 
erals need  to  learn,  if  not  to  reconstruct  their  religion,  to 
see  just  what  it  is  that  they  have  given  up  and  what  remains. 

Then  there  is  another  class  of  people  —  some  of  them  are 
in  the  old  churches  and  some  of  them  are  now  in  the  new  — 
who  have  not  yet  thought  their  way  far  enough  to  get  the 
comfort  and  the  strength  which  I  believe  wait  for  them  in  the 
new  thought.  They  feel  a  definite  sense  of  loss,  that  God  is 
farther  away  from  them  than  he  used  to  be,  that  his  help  is 
not  so  accessible  as  it  was  of  old.  They  feel  a  sense  of 
being  forsaken, —  alone,  like  a  child  wandering  in  the  wilder- 
ness, having  lost  hold  of  the  hand  that  once,  as  they  at 
least  believed,  was  leading  them  ;  and  they  are  now  trying 
unaided  to  find  their  way.  There  are  large  numbers  of 
people  in  the  old  churches  who  hesitate  to  come  into  the 
new  because  of  this  sense  of  religious  loss  that  seems  to 
overcome  them  ;  and  there  are  large  numbers,  who  have  been 
compelled  by  their  reason  and  honesty  to  come  into  the  new, 
who  have  brought  this  sense  of  loss  with  them,  and  they 
have  not  yet  found  any  gain  that  is  a  satisfactory  substitute 
for  it. 

I  wish,  if  I  may,  this  morning  to  help  and  lead  and  com- 
fort ;  to  establish  the  trust  of  these  people  by  trying  to  show 
them  that  the  things  which  have  been  lost  are  not  the  things 
which  we  really  care  to  keep,  and  that  the  things  which  we 
gain  are  enough  to  more  than  make  up  for  those  that  have 
passed  away.  A  sort  of  profit  and  loss  account  in  the  light 
of  this  work  of  religious  reconstruction  is  what  I  have  in 
mind  to  set  before  you.  I  wish,  then,  a  little  in  detail,  so  far 
as  time  will  allow,  to  note  specifically  a  few  things  that  are 
lost  and  a  few  things  that  are  gained. 

There  was  a  sense  of  being  at  home  in  the  old  universe 
that  it  will  take  a  good  while  to  find  in  the  new,  even  if  we 


234  Religious  Reconstruction 

ever  find  it  in  precisely  the  same  sense.  This  sense  of  loss 
exists  for  two  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  we  were  accus- 
tomed to  the  old ;  we  had  adjusted  ourselves  to  it ;  we  felt 
at  home  in  it.  All  of  its  phases  were  familiar  to  us ;  they 
were  part  of  our  waking  thought  and  of  our  sleeping  dreams. 
We  had  been  trained  in  this  belief  concerning  God,  man,  the 
world,  and  destiny  until  they  were  almost  a  part  of  the  very 
substance  of  our  brains ;  and  of  course  we  felt  at  home  in 
them.  Then  we  felt  all  the  more  at  home  because  the  uni- 
verse was  so  small  as  compared  with  what  we  now  know  it  to 
be.  A  little  universe,  no  larger  than  the  present  known  orbit 
of  the  moon,  was  something  that  a  man  could  grasp.  He 
could  think  that  kind  of  a  world.  It  began  only  a  few  thou- 
sand years  ago;  it  was  going  to  end  in  a  little  while.  It  was 
created  for  a  perfectly  distinct  and  definite  purpose  ;  it  was 
being  governed  and  guided  in  a  perfectly  distinct  and  defi- 
nite way  towards  a  definite  result.  The  whole  idea  could  be 
grasped.  It  was  a  conception  one  could  carry  with  him ;  but 
it  is  gone,  and  we  are  lost  in  infinity, —  a  universe  that  has 
for  our  imagination  neither  beginning,  limit,  nor  end.  And 
though  we  believe  ever  so  firmly  in  "  some  divine  event, 
towards  which  the  whole  creation  moves,"  it  is  a  matter  of 
faith  rather  than  of  knowledge ;  and  what  that  far-off,  divine 
event  is  we  can,  at  most,  but  very  dimly  perceive  and  im- 
agine. The  universe  is  so  large  to  our  modern  conception 
that  our  brains,  our  hearts,  our  whole  lives,  seem  all  out  of 
doors,  left  shelterless  and  alone.  We  are  not  yet  adjusted 
to  this  new  thought  about  it. 

Now,  what  are  some  of  the  things  to  be  said  to  these 
classes  of  persons  of  which  I  have  spoken, —  those  with  this 
definite  sense  of  loss  ? 

In  the  first  place,  they  have  lost  the  old,  near,  simple,  tan- 
gible thought  of  God.  The  beautiful  old  Bible  opens  with 


T/tc  Loss  and  Gain  235 

the  story  of  God's  having  built  the  world  and  made  a  garden 
in  it,  and  then  of  his  coming  in  definite  shape  and  walking 
in  this  garden  in  the  cool  of  the  day,  and  talking  familiarly 
with  this  first  man,  his  child  whom  he  had  created.  All  the 
way  along  in  the  early  part  of  the  book  there  are  stories  of 
God's  appearance  in  this  way  for  some  special  reason ;  and 
so  there  was  this  sense,  to  him  who  was  brought  up  in 
these  ideas,  of  God's  being  very  manlike  and  visible,  that  he 
could  come  to  the  foot  of  God's  throne,  that  God  might  be 
seen,  perhaps  be  touched.  I  know  in  my  childhood  prayers 
I  had  a  very  definite  outlined  picture  of  the  Father  to  whom 
I  was  praying.  I  believed  that  I  could  take  my  little  sor- 
rows and  troubles  to  him  just  as  I  could  take  them  to  father 
and  mother,  and  that  he  would  hear  me,  and  that,  if  he  did 
not  take  them  away,  he  would  give  me  som^  peculiar  strength 
to  bear  them.  It  was  very  real.  God  was  very  near,  very 
close,  in  those  old  days,  to  lonely,  hungry,  childlike  human 
hearts.  And  there  is  thus  a  sense  of  loss  to  those  who  were 
brought  up  with  this  conception  of  God  in  the  thought  that 
now  they  must  think  of  him  as  infinite,  as  perhaps  only  the 
soul  of  the  world,  only  the  life  of  this  great  mechanism  called 
Nature.  They  try  to  outline  him,  try  to  locate  him ;  but 
their  reason  forbids.  They  wonder  if  any  longer  he  hears 
them,  if  he  cares  for  them,  if  indeed  he  be  conscious  at  all, 
or  if  he  be  not  so  absorbed  in  looking  after  his  great  worlds 
that  there  is  no  place  in  his  thought  or  his  heart  for  them. 

But  let  us  consider.  Since  God  is  infinite  and  man  is 
finite,  at  any  definite  stage  of  human  advance  the  thought 
that  people  will  hold  concerning  God  can  only  be  the  high- 
est and  best  that  they  are  then  capable  of.  During  the  child- 
hood of  the  world,  the  thought  of  God  was  childish,  just  as 
our  thought  of  him  was  childish  during  our  own  personal 
childhood.  But,  as  the  world  grows  to  manhood,  it  must 


236  Religious  Reconstruction 

leave  behind  it  childish  things.  God  must  become  greater 
than  he  was ;  and,  at  every  single  step  of  this  advance  in  the 
history  of  the  world's  theological  progress,  the  giving  up  of 
this  old  conception  of  God  must  have  seemed  like  atheism. 
Suppose  you  go  to  the  idolater,  who  has  been  accustomed  to 
image  his  god  in  marble  or  stone  or  wood,  and  detach  his 
thought  from  that,  and  tell  him  that  God  is  spirit,  as  Jesus 
told  those  who  were  with  him  in  his  day ;  and  to  him  at  first  it 
would  seem  as  though  his  god  were  utterly  lost.  It  must  be 
so.  But  the  process  through  which  we  go  in  this  progress  of 
ours  seems  to  me  like  that  which  a  man  makes  from  a  cosey, 
quiet,  little  valley,  as  he  climbs  the  mountain-side  to  some 
lofty  table-land.  Everything  was  near  to  him  while  he  was 
in  this  little,  secluded  valley ;  but,  as  he  begins  to  rise,  he 
does  not  lose  the  valley.  The  valley  is  there,  the  same  quiet, 
cosey  nook  that  it  was  before :  only  the  world  grows  larger. 
The  new  thought  includes  all  that  was  true,  that  was  sweet, 
sacred,  holy.  It  keeps  all  that.  It  includes  it  in  the  larger 
sweep  of  things  that  the  eye  and  the  imagination  take  in. 
So  I  believe  we  may  say  that  no  single  thing  that  men  ever 
dreamed  about  God  of  noble,  of  beautiful,  of  helpful  in  the 
past,  is  ever  lost  out  of  an  intelligent  man's  conception  of 
God  in  this  modern  world.  God  does  not  become  less  than 
he  was  when  we  thought  of  him  as  tangible,  visible,  portable. 
There  is  nothing  lost  from  the  infinite  heart.  Neither  has 
God  withdrawn  himself  from  us.  We  lose  the  sense  of  him 
because  he  is  so  vast.  Suppose  a  father  should  take  his 
little  child  to  see  Mt.  Washington,  and  after  he  had  reached 
the  base  of  the  mountain  should  conclude  to  take  him  to  the 
summit,  that  he  might  gain  the  magnificent  view  from  there. 
On  his  way,  he  gets  lost  in  the  forest;  and  the  little  child 
asks,  "Where  is  Mt.  Washington?"  He  sees  round  him 
only  the  woods  and  the  stones  and  the  common  soil  beneath 


TJie  Loss  and  Gain  237 

his  feet  j  and  yet  he  is  folded  all  the  time  close  to  the 
mountain's  heart.  I  believe  that  God  is  not  farther  away 
from  us  than  I  used  to  think  him  when  I  prayed  to  him 
as  a  little  child.  I  believe  that,  if  we  use  the  widest  sweep 
of  our  intellects  and  the  noblest  intuitions  of  our  hearts,  we 
shall  think  of  him  as  closer  to  us  than  ever  in  all  the  world 
before,  closer  in  his  thought,  closer  in  his  love,  closer  in  his 
tender,  watchful  care.  He  is  nearer  than  our  very  lives; 
for  only  in  him  do  we  live.  He  is  here,  close  by  my  side 
as  I  speak  to  you,  close  to  you.  Every  thought  of  your 
heart  that  reaches  out  towards  him  meets  him;  every  out- 
stretching of  your  hand,  however  blind  it  be,  touches  him; 
every  action  of  your  lives,  waking  or  sleeping,  is  dealing 
with  God  first-hand. 

The  old  conception  of  God  was  of  a  being  who  was  par- 
tial, who  was  cruel,  who  possessed  attributes  repulsive  to  our 
moral  nature  and  contradictory  to  our  intelligent  thought. 
If  you  study  the  whole  conception,  instead  of  picking  out 
here  and  there  only  those  things  which  are  beautiful  and 
which  you  would  like  to  keep,  you  will  find  that  there  was 
much  in  it  that  you  would  not  desire  any  longer ;  while  the 
present  conception  of  him  is  as  the  All-perfect  One.  And, 
if  there  be  mists  and  clouds,  we  must  remember  that  it  is 
the  sun  that  lifts  the  mists  into  the  sky ;  and,  after  they  are 
lifted  up,  it  there  dissipates  them,  so  that  they  become  in- 
visible, or  else  pours  them  down  over  the  thirsty  earth  as 
beneficent  rain.  So  it  seems  to  me  that  this  changed  re- 
ligious conception  involves  the  loss  of  nothing  of  worth,  but 
a  gain  of  everything  that  is  valuable. 

But  I  must  hasten  to  note  another  point, —  the  change 
from  thinking  of  Jesus  as  God  to  thinking  of  him  as  a  man. 
Jesus  was  very  dear  to  my  heart  in  the  old  days.  It  seemed 
to  bring  God  close  to  us  to  think  of  him  as  wearing  a  human 


238  Religious  Reconstruction 

body,  walking  the  earth  among  his  disciples,  leaving  his 
commandments  to  be  the  guide  of  future  times.  I  do  not 
wonder  that  people  mourn  sometimes,  and  sadly  say  of 
these  liberals,  as  the  disciples  said,  "They  have  taken 
away  my  Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they  have  laid  him  " ; 
that  they  should  rebel  at  the  idea  which  modern  thought  com- 
pels us  to  take  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  In  the  old  thought 
of  Jesus,  the  Father  was  almost,  if  not  quite,  practically 
lost.  You  will  find  that  most  persons  who  believe  in  the 
deity  of  Jesus  to-day,  think  of  him  almost  exclusively  as 
God,  direct  their  prayers  to  him,  look  to  him  for  comfort, 
help,  sympathy,  guidance ;  and  it  was  very  sweet  to  think 
of  him  as  being  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities, 
sharing  our  humanity,  and  so  being  able  to  feel  with  us  all 
the  experiences  of  our  lives.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  you 
must  take  the  whole  conception,  not  a  part  of  it.  Jesus  was 
a  very  essential  part  —  the  central  part  —  of  a  system  of 
things  that  represented  God  as  fighting  a  losing  battle  for 
the  control  of  his  own  universe.  It  represented  mm  as  hav- 
ing permitted  the  overthrow  of  his  plans,  after  he  had 
created  the  world  and  had  made  man  perfect  in  his  own 
image.  Jesus  represented  a  thought  of  despair  for  the  main, 
part  of  the  world,  and  of  hope  for  only  a  few.  So,  if  we 
think  of  him  as  a  part  of  this  system,  for  the  sake  of  being 
rid  of  the  system  we  will  gladly  give  up  anything  that  might 
have  promised  comfort  and  cheer  in  the  world  by  his  per- 
sonality. But  we  do  not  lose  anything  of  all  this  revelation 
of  God  in  Jesus  Christ.  Whatever  there  was  that  was  divine 
in  Jesus,  whatever  there  was  that  was  hopeful,  comforting, 
sweet,  inspiring,  is  all  there  still.  So  much  of  the  glory  of 
God  as  shone  out  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  shines  still  in 
the  face  of  Jesus,  the  man  and  brother.  And,  then,  our  con- 
ception of  humanity  is  glorified  by  the  thought  that  there  is 


The  Loss  and  Gain  239 

not  this  gulf  between  us  and  God  that  needs  to  be  bridged, 
and  that  all  human  brains  and  all  human  hearts  and  all 
human  lives  are  open  to  the  influx  of  the  divine.  Jesus  was 
not  separated  from  us  in  kind, —  only  in  degree,  only  pecul-  't 
iarly  rilled  with  the  spirit  of  the  Father.  He  was  a  com- 
forter and  a  helper,  an  example  of  what  any  of  us  may  be 
and  may  do.  It  seems  to  me,  then,  as  we  look  at  it  all 
round,  that  the  changed  conception  of  Jesus  only  brings 
God  nearer  to  the  world  and  leads  the  world  nearer  to  God. 
There  is  one  other  point  that  I  must  note,  touching  the 
changed  conception  that  we  hold  concerning  the  Bible.  It  j 
is  a  real  comfort  to  many  hearts,  I  have  no  sort  of  doubt, , 
to  believe  that  there  is  a  book  which  contains  the  infallible 
mind  of  God ;  that  they  need  not  doubt  and  question  over . 
these  great  matters  of  God,  the  universe,  and  human  life. 
It  is  a  comfort  to  know  that  they  can  open  a  book  and  find 
there  a  solution  of  all  the  problems  that  otherwise  would 
be  so  troublesome ;  that  a  man  can  feel  that  he  possesses  a 
guide  in  all  that  he  has  to  do.  Yet  there  are  certain  other 
sides  to  this.  This  guide  teaches  all  through  its  earlier  parts 
especially,  but  also  in  the  later  parts,  a  morality  that  we  can 
no  longer  accept.  It  is  full  of  mistakes  in  matters  of  science 
and  in  questions  of  history.  It  is  full  of  contradictions  and 
difficulties  that  perplex  and  trouble  the  tender  heart.  These . 
make  it  impossible  for  us  to  believe  that  it  can  be  an  infalli- 
ble transcript  of  the  divine  wisdom.  And  then,  again,  if  we 
think  that  God  gave  to  only  a  small  fragment  of  the  world' 
his  perfect  will  in  one  perfect  book,  we  must  think  him  a 
partial  God.  We  must  believe,  on  that  theory,  that  he  left 
the  great  majority  of  his  children  without  any  definite  knowl- 
edge of  him,  and  left  them  under  the  doom  of  a  condemna- 
tion that  is  endless, —  left  them  to  wonder  and  question  and 
stumble  and  fall.  And  the  heart  of  the  world,  if  it  be 


240  Religious  Reconstruction 

a  tender  heart,  cannot  bear  such  a  thought  as  that  of  our 
heavenly  Father.  Even  if  I  could  to-day  go  back  to  the 
Bible  with  my  old  ideas  about  it,  I  should  do  it  with  a  great 
pain  at  my  heart,  and  wonder  why  our  Father  showed  him- 
self a  tender  and  loving  Father  to  only  a  few,  and  a  Father 
neglectful  and  forgetful  of  the  great  majority  of  his  children 
on  the  earth. 

There  are  some  other  things  that  we  lose  in  losing  the  old 
faith.  I  will  only  hint  them  :  I  need  not  argue  concerning 
them.  We  need  to  remember  one  thing,  however, —  that 
this  old  system,  which  is  embodied  in  the  creeds  of  the  old 
churches,  is  a  logical  system,  bound  together  part  by  part, 
that  stand  or  fall  together.  Men  have  no  right  to  pick 
out  certain  things  in  it  that  they  happen  to  like,  and  say 
that  they  will  keep  them,  and  pass  by  certain  other  things 
that  they  do  not  like,  and  say,  Those  we  will  leave  one  side. 
They  all  belong  together,  as  parts  of  one  system.  If  you 
take  the  system,  you  must  take  them  all. 

In  losing  these  old  theories,  we  lose  what  we  are  relieved 
and  thankful  to  lose, —  the  doctrine  of  the  ruin  and  the  total 
depravity  of  man.  This  doctrine  of  hopeless  destruction 
and  despair  is  an  essential  part  of  the  old  system,  the  very 
foundation  of  it  all;  and  you  have  no  right  to  surrender 
that,  and  keep  other  parts  that  you  are  willing  to  preserve. 
We  lose  the  belief  in  the  devil, —  that  being  who  divides  the 
rule  of  the  universe  with  God,  according  to  the  old  system. 
He  is  the  king  and  the  lord  of  this  world ;  he  reigns  in  the 
great  majority  of  human  hearts,  and  is  to  make  them  and 
keep  them  his  subjects  forevermore.  We  lose  the  doctrine 
of  hell.  We  lose,  also,  the  old  doctrine  of  heaven  along 
with  hell.  If  we  lose  one  of  them  as  a  definite  place  in 
which  people  are  confined,  we  must,  I  think,  logically  sur- 
render the  other,  also,  as  a  definite  place  in  which  only  the 


The  Loss  and  Gain  241 

happy  can  abide,  and  where  one,  if  he  may  abide,  must 
perforce  be  happy.  We  gain  instead  of  that  thought  a  con- 
ception of  human  destiny  that  infinitely  transcends  the  old. 
These  are  some  of  the  losses  and  some  of  the  gains  involved 
in  the  religious  reconstruction  through  which  the  world  is 
passing. 

I  wish  now  to  outline  for  you  as  completely  as  I  may,  in 
the  time  at  my  disposal,  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  demand 
of  a  perfect  religion  for  the  world. 

A  complete  religion  must  match  and  satisfy  the  whole 
man.  It  must  match  and  satisfy  the  intellect,  and,  though  it 
may  transcend  it,  it  must  not  contradict  it.  It  must  match 
the  heart.  I  believe  that  these  demands  of  the  heart  of  men 
for  comfort,  for  help,  for  hope,  for  sympathy,  are  created  by 
the  nature  of  tilings,  and  that  they  are  legitimate,  and  that 
no  conception  of  religion  that  does  not  comfort  men  can  by 
any  possibility  be  a  complete  conception. 

Then  a  complete  religion  must  be  the  master  of  practical, 
mighty  motives, —  motives  grand  enough  and  strong  enough 
to  lift  human  lives,  to  mould  and  shape  them  in  accord  with 
their  ideals ;  and  it  must  have  a  hope  as  magnificent  as  the 
dreams  of  the  human  soul, —  a  hope  for  the  future  to  match 
the  eternal  preparation  of  the  past  that  has  led  us  up  to  this 
present  hour. 

Now  let  us  for  a  few  moments  review  the  old  and  the 
new  in  the  light  of  these  demands  as  to  what  a  complete, 
perfect  religion  ought  to  offer  to  our  humanity.  I  said 
that  a  perfect  religion  must  satisfy  the  intellect,  must  be 
consistent  with  the  highest,  clearest,  freest  thought  of  the 
world.  It  takes  only  a  very  superficial  study  of  the  old  con- 
ception to  find  out  that,  at  whatever  point  you  examine  it,  it 
fails  to  meet  the  demand  of  the  human  brain.  This  theory 
of  the  universe,  of  God,  of  man,  of  the  origin  of  evil,  this 


242  Religions  Reconstruction 

explanation  of  the  present  condition  of  the  human  race  and 
its  prevision  of  human  destiny, —  all  these  are  an  affront  to 
reason.  They  do  not  simply  transcend  reason,  but  they  con- 
tradict it  at  every  point.  They  are  not  above  reason :  they 
are  unreasonable.  But  the  conception  that  modern  thought 
presents  to  us  is,  in  the  very  nature  of  things,  reasonable ;  for 
it  is  that  which  human  reason  has  discovered.  Man  has  at 
last  dared  to  believe  that  in  thought  as  well  as  in  heart  he 
is  made  in  the  image  of  God.  He  has  dared  to  look  out 
over  this  universe,  seeking  simply  for  truth,  buoyed  up  by 
the  great  underlying  faith  that  every  line  or  fragment  of 
truth  he  may  discover  is  just  in  so  far  a  revelation  of  God. 
And  whatever  truth  has  been  discovered  is  thus  in  accord 
with  reason ;  for  reason  has  found  it,  and  reason  is  satisfied 
with  it.  And  we  are  compelled  perforce  to  accept  the  convic- 
tion that,  since  all  of  the  universe  that  has  been  explored  is 
rational  throughout,  it  must  be  rational  all  the  way  through. 
Though  there  be  so  large  a  part  of  it  at  present  undiscov- 
ered, the  reason  of  man  rests  in  the  confidence  that,  when 
it  is  found,  it  will  be  in  accord  with  the  highest  human 
thought,  as  it  is  an  expression  of  the  Divine.  The  concep- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  universe,  of  the  origin  of  man,  of 
human  civilization  and  development  to  the  present  hour, — 
all  these  things  have  been  discovered  and  verified,  as  far  as 
they  are  known,  by  the  reason  of  man  in  the  light  of  the 
scientific  method  ;  but  they  are  none  the  less  religious  for 
that.  For  in  this  rational  conception  of  things  we  believe 
that  all  truth  is  only  in  so  far  a  manifestation  of  the  divine 
mind. 

And  this  theory  of  things,  so  far  as  we  can  read  it,  is  also 
satisfactory  to  the  human  heart.  The  old  conception  of  the 
universe,  though  a  man  might  believe  it  with  his  whole  soul, 
and  though  he  might  have  persuaded  himself  that,  having 


TJic  Loss  and  Gain  243 

accepted  the  terms  of  salvation,  he  was  safe,  was  still  a 
heavy  burden  for  him  to  bear.  The  thought  of  the  condition 
of  his  fellow-men,  of  their  possible  destiny,  the  sight  of 
human  ill,  human  cruelty,  human  pain, —  all  to  be  accounted 
for  as  the  result  of  sin,  as  the  infliction  of  punishment  on  the 
part  of  God,  and  as  to  be  continued  forever  in  the  future, 
and  in  that  future  no  alleviation,  even  increasing  in  horror 
age  after  age, —  this  was  something  that  the  intellect  could 
not  explain  not  only,  but  that  a  tender  heart  must  forget  or 
must  become  hardened  to  endure. 

As  illustrating  how  this  belief,  this  old  conception,  im- 
pressed one  of  the  noblest  men  of  the  old  faith,  I  wish  to 
read  to  you  a  paragraph  by  the  late  Dr.  Albert  Barnes,  who 
was  a  Presbyterian,  one  of  the  noblest  preachers  of  this  gen- 
eration. He  wrote  one  of  the  most  widely  used  commen- 
taries of  the  New  Testament,  and  was  himself  a  most  lova- 
ble and  loving  man.  Hear  what  he  says,  as  he  looks  over 
the  world  'and  thinks  of  death  and  sin  and  suffering  and  of 
the  future  destiny  of  men  in  the  light  of  the  old  faith  :  — 

"I  have  read,  to  some  extent,  what  wise  and  good  men 
have  written,  I  have  looked  at  their  theories  and  explana- 
tions, I  have  endeavored  to  weigh  their  arguments ;  for  my 
whole  soul  pants  for  light  and  relief  on  these  questions. 
But  I  get  neither.  And,  in  the  distress  and  anguish  of  my 
own  spirit,  I  confess  that  I  see  no  light  whatever.  I  see  not 
one  ray  to  disclose  to  me  the  reason  why  sin  came  into  the 
world,  why  the  earth  is  strewed  with  the  dying  and  the  dead, 
and  why  man  must  suffer  to  all  eternity. 

"  I  have  never  yet  seen  a  particle  of  light  thrown  on  these 
subjects,  that  has  given  a  moment's  ease  to  my  tortured 
mind.  Nor  have  I  an  explanation  to  offer,  or  a  thought  to 
suggest,  that  would  be  of  relief  to  you.  I  trust  other  men 
—  as  they  profess  to  do  —  understand  this  better  than  I  do, 


244  Religious  Reconstruction 

and  that  they  have  not  the  anguish  of  spirit  which  I  have. 
But  I  confess,  when  I  look  on  a  world  of  sinners  and  suf- 
ferers, upon  death-beds  and  graveyards,  upon  the  world  of 
woe,  filled  with  hosts  to  suffer  forever ;  when  I  see  my 
friends,  my  parents,  my  family,  my  people,  my  fellow-citi- 
zens ;  when  I  look  upon  a  whole  race,  all  involved  in  this 
sin  and  danger,  and  when  I  see  the  great  mass  of  them 
wholly  unconcerned,  and  when  I  feel  that  God  only  can 
save  them,  and  yet  he  does  not  do  it, —  I  am  struck  dumb. 
It  is  all  dark,  dark,  dark  to  my  soul ;  and  I  cannot  dis- 
guise it." 

Those  are  the  words  of  one  of  the  masters  of  the  old 
faith  concerning  the  difficulty  which  this  theory  presented 
both  to  his  head  and  heart. 

I  said,  also, —  I  shall  touch  the  above  point  again, —  that 
a  theory  of  the  world  which  should  constitute  a  complete 
religion  must  not  only  satisfy  the  head  and  the  heart,  but 
must  be  a  sufficient  motive  force  to  control  human  thought 
and  mould  human  action.  The  old  theories  were  hopeless. 
If  one  believed  that  he  was  foreordained  to  be  saved,  why 
make  any  effort  ?  If  he  believed  that  he  was  foreordained 
to  be  lost,  effort  was  useless.  One  could  not,  under  that 
theory,  have  any  motive  for  doing  more  than  to  try  to  save 
his  own  soul,  and  possibly  a  few  of  his  neighbors'.  He 
could  not  feel  that  he  was  part  of  a  grand  scheme,  in  which 
he  was  co-worker  with  God  for  the  deliverance  of  all. 

But  think  a  moment.  Rouse  yourselves  to  the  magnifi- 
cence of  the  theory  of  things  which  modern  science  has 
revealed  to  us  concerning  the  origin,  the  nature,  and  the 
destiny  of  this  grand  race  of  ours.  No  matter  where  we 
started,  no  matter  how  low  down,  however  near  the  animal, 
we  have  climbed  up  to  this  magnificent  outlook  that  we 
occupy  at  the  present  day,  and  are  surrounded  on  all  hands 


The  Loss  and  Gain  245 

by  forces  of  which  we  are  only  beginning  to  understand  the 
nature  and  of  which  we  are  only  beginning  to  gain  the  con- 
trol. This  old  world  is  a  storehouse  of  energies,  thrilling, 
pulsing,  with  the  very  life  of  God ;  and  we  co-operate  with 
God  at  every  turn  we  take  in  subduing  this  world.  We  can, 
and  we  will,  place  it  under  our  feet.  We  can,  and  we  will, 
abolish  poverty,  crime,  sorrow,  sin, —  everything  but  death ; 
and  death  we  do  not  wish  to  abolish,  for  it  is  the  gateway 
through  which  we  take  the  next  step  towards  the  higher  life. 
We  can  control  this  old  world,  we  can  develop  ourselves 
into  the  image  of  the  Eternal  One.  And  what  does  all  this 
mean  ?  It  means  simply  that  we  are  developing  and  per- 
fecting these  personalities  of  ours  into  a  fitness  to  overleap 
the  gulf  of  what  we  call  death.  And  so  this  modern  theory 
opens  for  us  a  scene  of  eternal  advance, —  not  advance  for 
a  few,  advance  for  all.  We  are  working  with  God  then, — 
not  selfishly  for  the  salvation  of  our  own  souls,  but  every 
step  we  take  in  making  ourselves  noble  must  be  through  the 
manifestation  or  use  of  those  powers  which  are  noble  and 
which  only  find  play  for  their  exercise  as  we  deal  with  and 
help  our  fellows  here.  We  are  working  that  we  may  lift  the 
load  of  sorrow  and  grief  from  all  mankind ;  we  are  working 
for  the  deliverance  of  the  whole  creation  that  is  groaning 
and  travailing  in  pain  until  now  ;  we  are  working  for  a  future 
that  includes  not  only  the  highest,  but  the  lowest,  not  only 
the  best,  but  the  worst,  and  that  means  the  deliverance  and 
the  final  development  of  every  human  soul. 

This  conception  of  religion,  then,  that  we  hold  to-day,  as 
compared  with  the  old,  takes  up  into  itself,  just  as  the  evolu- 
tion of  the  race  does,  everything  that  was  of  any  worth  in 
the  past,  keeps  it,  and  carries  it  forward.  Nothing  good  in 
the  old  religion  has  ever  faded  out.  Only  the  imperfections 
do  we  lose ;  and  we  gain  a  grander  thought  than  the  world 


246  Religious  Reconstruction 

has  ever  known.  As  I  compare  even  my  own  experience  of 
the  past  with  the  present,  I  think  of  myself  as  having  been 
living  in  the  twilight  world  of  an  underground  cavern,  see- 
ing only  dimly,  as  shadows,  wondering  at  the  reflected  im- 
ages of  things,  confused,  lost,  and  practically  comfortless; 
while  now  it  seems  to  me  that  I  have  escaped,  that  I  have 
come  out  and  up  into  the  upper  air.  The  green  fields  are 
about  me,  God's  winds  fan  my  face,  the  blue  skies  are  over- 
head, his  sunshine  fills  and  encloses  all;  and,  when  the 
night  comes,  the  hosts  of  stars  come  out  with  their  sugges- 
tions of  infinite  possibilities  to  be  revealed  in  the  days  that 
are  before.  And  so,  instead  of  having  lost  anything,  religion 
seems  to  me  to  give  us  a  new  and  grander  God,  a  grander 
universe,  a  grander  man,  a  grander  hope  than  till  this  hour 
the  world  has  ever  seen. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


satoffi^ 

|     70"a 

:•;':• 

20w'^ 

REC'D  LD 

APR  1  3  1962 

.^jStfT* 

REG  D  LD 

J     DEC23'b;j'4pw 

. 

.^i 

LD  21A-50m-12,'60 
(B6221slO)47GB 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


•   YC134925 


